Re: [boost] [system][filesystem v3] Question abouterror_code arguments

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.