220 39367 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Niall Douglas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Alternative proposal for mapping P0709 Deterministic Exceptions into C Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 86 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <6a65c934-5d2a-4e75-b88d-9eaaee338bd3@isocpp.org> <1c229827-6d5d-45bd-8766-c3af818b2b0b@isocpp.org> <4ac80882-16fc-4ab4-9a12-64da1ef0e974@isocpp.org> <8866881c-ef1d-4c37-9242-5b1d3327c288@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1168_624415036.1532454741343" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1532454618 21182 195.159.176.226 (24 Jul 2018 17:50:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 17:50:18 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDGKFT5YZADRBVWO3XNAKGQE7E5RSEA@isocpp.org Tue Jul 24 19:50:14 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yb0-f199.google.com ([209.85.213.199]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fi1Rs-0005Od-DD for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:50:12 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yb0-f199.google.com with SMTP id 189-v6sf2418891ybz.11 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=fMblGnvCXOCODobxbDS+7MCQ39xeIZy0unNQK138j4E=; b=0kCVy6nF8ddVpLHhT6V1VsOZwGMjWlrWcWbaw/Sn94CUGMArYuY+eaVBQc+x7WJSwN 1pS0tLCUVqQEm9Qy7OdVhydAyq1P84TPajhMsnquEpCI6cImCg/CS8utB/K3OzuZ3cdf phLoX5BrRoEPUpxoKEYhWLVwpmsjENuFnOAtY2v0K2vNJPUvgtGUyrtnUSAf3DQaDNLS 28NReuGQlWlWl1KVgdry8bYdhZpt9zNsZzB03xRaBODdQfVtLngp3PcFXDGHrc+KFQxT oLFtG6qm4RBma57VG1lfr7oSTXpZbSTsyUmGUEr1hOrpEOf2QEnOjnRgfVXcO5J+CL4u vWdg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=fMblGnvCXOCODobxbDS+7MCQ39xeIZy0unNQK138j4E=; b=CpwuTcrOhNQV79n4HC8jFDSOKLx1+3vThNf8TkidPMzv7Z1j2h2LhKcLcyIJ4tsPH+ xJY6c3udixY+KvDSVEiRGIPT3O7IPg2kBWlvs5g135uSJBJ6qhFJWO8Xd/GGRKjxjqDi OKidgFFGRij18aJaROoQ9a22e0Ygr1C+Mrmyo8hioNwf0qv1U/NWh3BliXGVRuu+yT6T NlP8y4fJC6gFsvXtkQLYL6zl7BTisYEJV/VhPx0uLa3H1oLHbhmIEiFc7df6MiGJhwOA Mws00za4vAVgQECpo6RlvjZDC/hiir8qYuOFnve+HgFFnd5O8ocxZliucMFJoNadi4bH owBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=fMblGnvCXOCODobxbDS+7MCQ39xeIZy0unNQK138j4E=; b=eGlWu7ZPpTdvLrxycAQoBR570guYCacofkPp1uyyECyN117+RQicO9VmICdAi43mXq Jwi4l/FuXNSQNMI7j090pDcSQPI6RpFdnUOv+PPi3FRqpBdht2eJxzAACY/QFO63TKWs gLJoK3w+DknYdVmL5rGq4tE+kyDwH4FMIlC9OaDKsxeRp50SjHzWi8xndPL7g7jlDnZZ l1MpE8ZZmjqqUhaq1yq/p4vOXZNnYt/ygteKKwBp05ijXfoJH/1Sxa+bSUrwAkbRoWpJ ot+YdWNlAKKPDFNeaBGINmyx/WntUd9BJDrAD51/Ez890vVa/zuRe4KH3w0h4nDHHJwn jCWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFvSxpgMTAKnZEfv7VvyZ/VKs+ucVTfXwl5SsexcgqyNLqa1hSg r8YJOXSnMWMolrrEt7ajsWUntA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfZl7fbdcl3js1EVbFgoagLFLgtm2nFUsObpMhTTCBGJz3/KRod1P3yPjYiD43vmUuJ50sjxQ== X-Received: by 2002:a81:a093:: with SMTP id x141-v6mr5258484ywg.52.1532454742946; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 2002:a81:9b97:: with SMTP id s145-v6ls1634463ywg.43.gmail; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a81:3807:: with SMTP id f7-v6mr337617ywa.4.1532454741896; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:52:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8866881c-ef1d-4c37-9242-5b1d3327c288@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: nialldouglas14@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:39367 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1168_624415036.1532454741343 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1169_837385565.1532454741343" ------=_Part_1169_837385565.1532454741343 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Well, that leaves me with egg on my face. The proposal certainly makes >> more sense given what you've said. On a similar note, then, what would this >> do to our constexpr? >> > > It's a C proposal; it doesn't interact with `constexpr`. Indeed, one of > its biggest flaws is that it doesn't allow for inter-operation with C++ > static exceptions at all, despite being in part based on the same principle. > My _Fails() proposal does however work in constexpr, as deterministic exceptions is ordinary control flow. I appreciate that will be a controversial statement. However I've been working in this area closely for a long time now, and I am afraid that is ordinary control flow. This says nothing about whether one ought to use it as control flow, just that it is control flow in a way unlike type based exception throws. Besides, I intend for P1031 Low level file i/o to work in constexpr as soon as I can persuade the committee, and being that it fails via deterministic exceptions, that would also need to work in constexpr. Niall -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/e8190580-cda9-4899-ba2b-9a0fd5d48073%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_1169_837385565.1532454741343 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, that leaves me with egg on my face. The proposal certainly makes= more sense given what you've said. On a similar note, then, what would= this do to our constexpr?

It&#= 39;s a C proposal; it doesn't interact with `constexpr`. Indeed, one of= its biggest flaws is that it doesn't allow for inter-operation with C+= + static exceptions at all, despite being in part based on the same princip= le.

My _Fails() proposal do= es however work in constexpr, as deterministic exceptions is ordinary contr= ol flow.

I appreciate that will be a controversial= statement. However I've been working in this area closely for a long t= ime now, and I am afraid that is ordinary control flow. This says nothing a= bout whether one ought to use it as control flow, just that it is control f= low in a way unlike type based exception throws.

B= esides, I intend for P1031 Low level file i/o to work in constexpr as soon = as I can persuade the committee, and being that it fails via deterministic = exceptions, that would also need to work in constexpr.

=
Niall=C2=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.= com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/e8190580-cda9-4899-ba2b-9a0fd5d48073= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_1169_837385565.1532454741343-- ------=_Part_1168_624415036.1532454741343-- .