On 8/23/2018 7:33 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Wow. I'm surprised by this. I definitely agree with David on this one. Without being able to throw from a constructor, you can't really have it fail, and there are times when it needs to be able to fail. Not being able to have throwing constructors basically means having to do two-part initialization which I would have thought was almost universally considered bad.
Not really. You can use a factory function which can do it for you.
I expect that you'd have a riot on your hands though if you actually tried to push for getting rid of throwing constructors.
Maybe not. C++11 tries hard to discourage their use, and we know how hard they try to not disrupt existing code.
I'd be favorably disposed towards a DIP getting rid of them.
