https://github.com/psiha/err README.md copy-paste: --------------------------------------------- err - yet another take on C++ error handling. We have throw and std::error_code, what more could one possibly want? --------------------------------------------- std::error_code&co tried to solve or at least alleviate the problem of overhead of using exceptions (in terms of both source code verbosity and binary code size&speed) with functions which need to report failures that need not be 'exceptional' depending on the context of the call (thereby requiring try-catch blocks that convert exceptions to 'result codes'). Unfortunately, the way it was finally implemented, std::error_code did not quite accomplish what it set out to do: • in terms of runtime efficiency: 'manual'/explicit EH (try-catch blocks) is no longer needed but the compiler still has to insert hidden EH as it has to treat the functions in question as still possibly throwing (in fact the implementation/codegen of functions which use std::error_code for error reporting becomes even fatter because it has to contain both return-on-error paths and handle exceptions) • in terms of source code verbosity: again, try-catch blocks are gone but separate error_code objects have to be declared and passed to the desired function. Enter boost::err: 'result objects' (as opposed to just result or error codes) which can be examined and branched upon (like with traditional result codes) or left unexamined to self-throw if they contain a failure result (i.e. unlike traditional result codes, they cannot be accidentally ignored). Thanks to latest C++ language features (such as r-value member function overloads) incorrect usage (that could otherwise for example lead to a result object destructor throwing during a stack-unwind) can be disallowed/detected at compile time. Discussions where the concept (or a similar one) was first concieved of and/or so far discussed: • http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/system-filesystem-v3-Question-about-error... • http://cpptips.com/fallible • https://github.com/ptal/std-expected-proposal • https://github.com/ptal/expected • https://github.com/adityaramesh/ccbase/blob/master/include/ccbase/error/expe... • http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14923346/how-would-you-use-alexandrescus-... • https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BestPracticeHandbook#a8.DESIGN:Strongl... • http://2013.cppnow.org/session/non-allocating-stdfuturepromise **************************************************************** For starter's, to reduce the length of the first post, I'll assume that everyone as at least somewhat familiar with similar/related proposals from Andrei Alexandrescu (std::expected) and Niall Douglas (std::monad) to which I gave links above. What, primarily, makes (Boost.)Err different from other proposals is the ability to (using latest C++ features) detect/distinguish between temporaries and 'saved' return values by using two different class templates (result wrappers), fallible_result (for rvalues) and result_or_error (for lvalues) and thus minimise or often completely eliminate any extra verbosity: If we had a function foo() that produces bar_t objects but can fail with an err_t, up till now we had two options: * bar_t foo() throw( err_t ); * optional<bar_t> foo( err_t & ); Err enables the library writer to write a single API and a single implementation: err::fallible_result<bar_t, err_t> foo(); where fallible_result is the class template that wraps temporaries/rvalues returned from functions and its member functions are all declared with && (i.e. callable only on rvalues) so you get a compiler error if you save it to an auto value and try to do anything with it. The two exceptions are the implicit conversion operators to: - bar_t, which will either return bar_t or throw err_t and which is used for the 'EH code path' bar_t my_bar( foo() ); - err::result_or_error<bar_t, err_t> which is used for the 'oldsk00l nothrow error code path' err::result_or_error<bar_t, err_t> maybe_bar( foo ); if ( maybe_bar ) { print( *maybe_bar ); } else { log( maybe_bar.error() ); } Also, if the fallible_result rvalue is left uninspected and contains an error its destructor will throw (which AFAICT should be safe considering it is an rvalue and no other exception can possibly be active at the same time) - this makes code that uses Err enabled libraries/APIs but relies on EH almost indistinguishable from 'classic EH' APIs (almost because the one difference that remains is with the immediate use of the return value: because of the wrapper class one can no longer write foo().do_something() but has to implicitly use the -> operator and write foo()->do_something() where the -> operator will check-and-throw if foo() did not succeed). To wrap up, this approach gives the user the immediate and fine grained control over which error handling mechanism he/she wants to use while allowing the developer to write a single API and implementation - AFAICT it is a no brainer replacement for <system_error>, it is less verbose and much more efficient ;-) ps. the small library @ https://github.com/psiha/err is by no means a finished product, it contains no tests or documentation but 'it works' (i.e. it is used in the, also upcoming, https://github.com/psiha/mmap)...I'm bringing it to public view for scrutiny, discussion and guidance lest I steer in the wrong direction ;) -- "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate." Neil Postman