Re: I think I've found a solution to noexcept!
On 2011-04-21 00:58, restor wrote:
Well, I can't speak for everybody else, but there is one thing that
bugs me about the noexcept-block proposal: It's that it forces us to
create a new block. This has effects on how and where you define,
initialize and assign variables. Example:
double sqrt(double);
double foo(double x) noexcept
{
if (x<=0) return 0;
double t;
noexcept { t=sqrt(x); }
return 3*t+2;
}
On one hand, it's desirable to use very small noexcept-blocks in order
to benefit from static checking. On the other hand, small blocks may
force us to replace initialization with assignment (see for 't'). To
be honest, this is not a very satisfactory solution, in my opinion.
I find something else that bugs me in the noexcept blocks. It is more
about the keyword than about the block itself. noexcept would just
mean two opposite things: at function level it says "warn me if I
might throw an exception", at block level it says "do not warn me if I
might throw an exception". How do you explain that to novices? C++ has
already a bad reputation for overloading its keywords (I know it is
necessary for compatibility), and the above block would not help the
situation.
Very good point!
I guess, if we would have statically checked noexcept, the noexcept
block would just have to be replaced with
try
{
t=sqrt(x);
}
catch(...)
{
assert(false && "Check the implementation of sqrt");
}
It's cumbersome and it doesn't solve SG:s important issue, but it will
be correct.
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]