Re: History and evolution of the noexcept proposal?

From	"Martin B." <0xCDCDCDCD@gmx.at>
Newsgroups	comp.std.c++, comp.lang.c++.moderated
Subject	Re: History and evolution of the noexcept proposal?
Date	Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:19:48 CST
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	62
Sender	std-cpp-request@vandevoorde.com
Approved	austern@google.com
Message-ID	<ipbpeb$7fe$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<io0u5e$7l2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
To	undisclosed-recipients:;
Return-Path	<cppmods@mcgurn.dreamhost.com>
X-Original-Date	Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:17:42 +0200
X-Submission-Address	std-c++-submit@vandevoorde.com
Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.stben.net!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!208.90.169.41.MISMATCH!news.alt.net
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.std.c++:135 comp.lang.c++.moderated:953

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

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

Thread

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