On 2021-01-06 22:27, H. S. Teoh wrote:
That's the whole point of Sutter's proposal: they are all unified with
the universal Error struct. There is only one "backend": normal
function return values, augmented as a tagged union to distinguish
between normal return and error return. We are throwing out nonlocal
jumps in favor of normal function return mechanisms. We are throwing
out libunwind and all the heavy machinery it entails.
This is not what Sutter is proposing. He's proposing to add a new
"backend", so you end up with three different types of functions (when
it comes to error handling):
* Functions annotated with `throws`. This is the new "backend":
void foo() throws;
* Functions annotated with `noexcept`. This indicates a function will
not throw an exception (of the existing style):
void foo() noexcept;
* Functions without annotation. This indicates a function that may or
may not throw an exception (of the existing style):
void foo();
From the proposal, paragraph 4.1.7:
"Compatibility: Dynamic exceptions and conditional noexcept still work.
You can call a function that throws a dynamic exception from one that
throws a static exception (and vice versa); each is translated to the
other automatically by default or you can do it explicitly if you prefer."
But perhaps you're proposing something different for D?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
