Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | "Martin B." <0xCDCDCDCD@gmx.at> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c++, comp.lang.c++.moderated |
| Subject | Re: History and evolution of the noexcept proposal? |
| Date | 2011-04-28 12:19 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ipbpeb$7fe$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <io0u5e$7l2$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 12.04.2011 21:10, Martin B. wrote: > > As the thread [How on earth did noexcept get through the standards > process?][1] on c.l.c++.m has shown, there is a lot of confusion, > disappointment and questions around `noexcept`. > (...) > I think the following bullets would help in isolation to clear up some > questions that arose in [1]: > > * Search help: Is there an easy way of searching/finding/obtaining a > list of > all WG21 proposals and papers that deal with `noexcept` and for each to > verify when it was accepted or rejected and why? > > My Google search for this included variations on: noexcept site:http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21 N2855 site:http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21 "noexcept block" site:http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21 ... * Rationale: Why was the noexcept-block, as proposed in [N2855][5], > scraped? > This block would have made it trivial for compilers to statically "enforce" > `noexcept`, just as they "enforce" `const` at the moment. > (...) > Interestingly, N2855 was the *only* reference in papers, minutes and comments I could find wrt. the noexcept-block. Wrt. to statically checking noexcept, I could find one (1) other reference in a side note in N3202 - To which extent can noexcept be deduced? - by Bjarne Stroustrup: (...) First: in general we cannot know if a function throws - that would require (perfect) flow analysis (and in the worst case solving the halting problem). (...) (...) I know that some wants static checking of noexcept, but I don't and I consider static checking not an option for C++0x. I don't even want that discussion now. (...) So it would appear I didn't find any rationale on this (yet), but at least Bjarne "Mr. C++" Stroustrup seemed convinced at one point that statically checking noexcept doesn't make sense at the moment. cheers, Martin -- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try posting with your ] [ newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]
Back to comp.std.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
History and evolution of the noexcept proposal? "Martin B." <0xCDCDCDCD@gmx.at> - 2011-04-12 13:10 -0600 Re: History and evolution of the noexcept proposal? "Martin B." <0xCDCDCDCD@gmx.at> - 2011-04-28 12:19 -0600
csiph-web