Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Sam <sam@email-scan.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: We have a new standard!
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 09:56:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <cone.1736002600.380154.313520.1000@ripper.email-scan.com>
References: <cone.1735909901.753978.294757.1000@ripper.email-scan.com> <vl8sfi$3u4fh$1@dont-email.me> <cone.1735919451.379621.297354.1000@ripper.email-scan.com> <vl9631$9s6$2@dont-email.me> <cone.1735930680.269719.299708.1000@ripper.email-scan.com> <vlb6md$eh8e$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:56:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c9f7eaa4c45ae711d76e1dc8db0549";
	logging-data="547768"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qtlf6oKnR++NDebqFHWHl"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rzkBKHZAuZTFDsKNsdt7bE0yUQk=
X-Shameless-Plug: https://github.com/svarshavchik
X-Mailer: https://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
Content-Disposition: inline
Bytes: 3563

David Brown writes:

> On 03/01/2025 19:58, Sam wrote:
>> David Brown writes:
>>
>>> On 03/01/2025 16:50, Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll go even as far as stating, that either:
>>>>
>>>> A) I'm missing something obvious, something fundamental to C++ that would've  
>>>> prevented this implementation.
>>>>
>>>> B) The original implementation of throw specifiers in C++ was written by  
>>>> (fill in your favorite perjorative here, mine is "morons").
>>>>
>>>
>>> The answer is obviously A.
>>
>> Maybe to a super-genius like yourself, but mere mortals may have some  
>> trouble figuring it out.
>>
>
> Right.  The super-geniuses - like Stroustrup and his colleagues - understood  
> what they were doing.  They understood that any language design decision is  
> a compromise, and picked the balance that they believed worked best for the  
> kind of language they were creating.  Then 40-odd years later some mere  
> mortal comes along and says they were all morons.
>
> I don't need to be a super-genius to see that the answer is obviously A.

In that case, we have a Scooby-Doo mystery on our hands. Despite this claim,  
not a single super-genius has ever been able to articulate any technical  
reason that prevents exception handling validation.

Go ahead. Explain why a C++ compiler can handle noexcept-correctness, but  
will not be able to handle full exception signature/catching enforcement.

You can't. No amount of bloviating will change that. You can prove me wrong  
simply by showing why it's not possible. You won't. All you'll do is claim  
that only super-geniuses understand why. Go ahead, there's the sandbox, with  
inflatable toys, for all the super-geniuses to play with. You can play there  
for the rest of the day.

>>> Be a little less obnoxious in your posts, and maybe someone will explain it  
>>> to you (if you are unable to understand the posts I've already made).
>>
>> Sir: this is Usenet, and not Facebook. Go down the hall, last door on your  
>> left.
>>
>
> I can't stop you being obnoxious in your posts.  But I /can/ tell you it  
> greatly reduces your chances of getting helpful answers to your posts.

How much does it cost, in electricity, that magical mind ray-beam machine of  
yours?