Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[utility.requirements,exception.propagation] Clarify the thrown exceptions that have requirements and guarantees imposed LWG3640 #4869

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor

@JohelEGP JohelEGP commented Sep 6, 2021

Resolves #4863.

@JohelEGP JohelEGP changed the title [lib] Extend exception propagation to cover the full-expression [utility.requirements,exception.propagation] Clarify the exceptions have requirements and guarantees imposed Sep 7, 2021
@JohelEGP JohelEGP marked this pull request as ready for review September 7, 2021 02:50
@JohelEGP

This comment has been minimized.

@JohelEGP JohelEGP changed the title [utility.requirements,exception.propagation] Clarify the exceptions have requirements and guarantees imposed [utility.requirements,exception.propagation] Clarify the thrown exceptions that have requirements and guarantees imposed Sep 7, 2021
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Sep 25, 2021

I would like some LWG input on both this PR and the underlying issue.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe added the lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. label Sep 25, 2021
@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor Author

It seems to me that some select cwg-labeled issues reach CWG's plate, but that such is not the case for lwg. Should I submit a LWG issue, or is there some process behind these labels?

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Sep 25, 2021

@JohelEGP: If you're unsure if something is editorial, then it's definitely more reliable to start with an LWG issue, and LWG can decide that it's editorial. Otherwise I'll do my best to get LWG's attention, but that process is not terribly reliable. Generally, the less certain I am that something is obviously editorial, the less I'm willing to make changes unilaterally and will try to get some expert input.

CWG has a different work load and has been able to review editorial issues from GitHub reguarly recently, but fundamentally the same applies there, too: if something isn't obviously editorial, it's safer to go via the issues lists. We'll do our best here, but just in case you're looking for hard guarantees.

@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor Author

JohelEGP commented Sep 25, 2021

Thank you. I will consider submitting a LWG issue soon.

We'll do our best here, but just in case you're looking for hard guarantees.

I certainly wouldn't like this to go stale. The same might apply to others who have their issues labeled. Do you think that information is fit for the wiki? Or perhaps just being more clear as to how the WG's input should come about: you contacting them (perhaps with no hard guarantees) or the issues' author submitting an issue.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Sep 25, 2021

Maybe? We already say, "If you are not sure whether your proposed edit falls into the above categories, you should consider submitting it as a technical issue instead.", but we could add that we'll try our best to triage and redirect, but without guarantees?

@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, it's been a long time since I've read that. I suppose it's already clear enough.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

If you do get an LWG issue number, please let us know in a comment.

@@ -2218,6 +2220,24 @@
other than \tcode{value_type} are complete types.
\end{itemize}

\rSec3[exception.propagation]{Exception propagation requirements}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is not obvious to me that we want to go in this direction, or whether we prefer fixing the individual descriptions to talk about "initialization" and "assignment" more directly instead of choosing wording that allows to ignore some areas of the full-expression under discussion.

@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is now https://wg21.link/LWG3640.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer changed the title [utility.requirements,exception.propagation] Clarify the thrown exceptions that have requirements and guarantees imposed [utility.requirements,exception.propagation] Clarify the thrown exceptions that have requirements and guarantees imposed LWG3640 Nov 14, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[lib] Extend exception propagation to cover the initialization LWG3640
3 participants