Subject: Re: [boost] [system][filesystem v3] Question abouterror_code arguments
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-27 14:14:19
David Bergman wrote:
>> What I want to point out is that IMO, exceptions are sometimes
>> undeservedly ignored for different reasons. One of such reasons is
>> developer's commons, if he got used to code without exceptions and/or
>> cannot use them properly for the lack of knowledge. Another reason is
>> attempt to achieve overzealous portability, be that ancient buggy
>> compilers from the dawn of C++ or some exotic platforms without
>> exceptions support. All these reasons are valid, at least for now.
>>
>> But for how long? Developers eventually learn things or move to other
>> languages (C?). Ancient compilers die, new ones become more popular
>> and more efficient. Exotic platforms also either tend to decease or
>> evolve. In my mind, error handling through exceptions should become
>> more preferred over time. Expressing and honoring this tendency in the
>> Standard for the coming 5 years may not be such a bad idea after all.
>
> I agree with all you said, but (i) one should understand the *current*
> need for exception-less solutions and (ii) the idea that (C++) code
> without exception constructs is in some sense nonsensical is, well,
> nonsensical ;-) - all this while striving for exception handling
> everywhere possible and try to push compiler writers to make such
> handling even more efficient.
Perhaps, we could mark the non-throwing overloads as deprecated in the
Standard? Like strstreams, they are there but generally throwing
overloads are more preferred.