Re: [Boost-users] [review][LEAF] Review of LEAF

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Boost-users] [review][LEAF] Review of LEAF

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 08:30, Niall Douglas via Boost-users <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The current formulation of lightweight exceptions before WG21 is
> literally Experimental Outcome in language form. Same proposed error
> object, std::error. It is currently expected that both value-based and
> type-based exceptions would exist in future C++, in order to retain
> backwards compatibility, as the semantics between the two are not
> currently believed possible to be made exactly one-one.
>

i am obviously oblivious to what 'is in front of', but knowing that now
[what light weight exceptions entails], I concur with you. As I noted in
that same post, I 'get' [in respect of LEAF] the use-case of a c-api
error-handler (but there must be plenty of those, no?), but otherwise I
don't see it. From my personal perspective, I would not hesitate one second
to use Outcome now, instead of any other solution better, or worse, just
because it is going to be in some shape or form, but very similar, in the
future standard.

The kind of code I write (the application areas) almost always demands
logical correctness and other than the mythical OOM, no exceptions can
occur (bar a bit of IO, which would live somewhere separately), so I have
no need for any of these libraries, Most of my testing is fuzzing, let the
computer search for bugs, not me or the user. Here I obviously actively use
exceptions to figure out what happened if something does happen, it's
easier than logging and builtin.

degski
--
@systemdeg
https://www.instapaper.com <http://instapaper.com>
"We value your privacy, click here!" Sod off! - degski

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost