<HTML>
<HEAD>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>
    CWG Issue 92</TITLE>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
  INS { text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; background-color:#A0FFA0 }
  .INS { text-decoration:none; background-color:#D0FFD0 }
  DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color:#FFA0A0 }
  .DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color: #FFD0D0 }
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    HTML { background-color:#202020; color:#f0f0f0; }
    A { color:#5bc0ff; }
    A:visited { color:#c6a8ff; }
    A:hover, a:focus { color:#afd7ff; }
    INS { background-color:#033a16; color:#aff5b4; }
    .INS { background-color: #033a16; }
    DEL { background-color:#67060c; color:#ffdcd7; }
    .DEL { background-color:#67060c; }
  }
  SPAN.cmnt { font-family:Times; font-style:italic }
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><EM>This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21
  Core Issues List revision 118b.
  See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official
  list.</EM></P>
<P>2025-09-28</P>
<HR>
<A NAME="92"></A><H4>92.
  
Should <I>exception-specification</I>s be part of the type system?
</H4>
<B>Section: </B>14.5&#160; [<A href="https://wg21.link/except.spec">except.spec</A>]
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Status: </B>CD4
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Submitter: </B>Jonathan Schilling
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Date: </B>2 Feb 1999<BR>



<P>[Adopted at the October, 2015 meeting as P0012R1.]</P>

<P>It was tentatively agreed at the Santa Cruz meeting
that exception specifications
should fully participate in the type system.  This change would
address gaps in the current static checking of exception specifications
such as</P>

<PRE>
    void (*p)() throw(int);
    void (**pp)() throw() = &amp;p;   // not currently an error
</PRE>

<P>This is such a major change that it deserves to be a separate
issue.</P>

<P>See also issues <A HREF="25.html">25</A>,
<A HREF="87.html">87</A>, and
<A HREF="133.html">133</A>.</P>

<P><B>Additional note (March, 2013):</B></P>

<P>The advent of the <TT>noexcept</TT> operator makes this issue
more relevant in C++11.</P>



<P><B>Notes from the April, 2013 meeting:</B></P>

<P>CWG feels that a paper on this topic is needed before any action can
be taken.</P>

<P><B>Notes from the September, 2013 meeting:</B></P>

<P>CWG feels that EWG would be a better venue for this issue.  Possible
options might include removal of <I>dynamic-exception-specification</I>s
and incorporation of the binary <TT>noexcept</TT> status in the type
system.</P>

<P><B>Rationale (February, 2014):</B></P>

<P>EWG determined that no action should be taken on this issue.</P>

<P><B>Additional note, April, 2015:</B></P>

<P>EWG has expressed interest in further exploring this
issue (see EWG issue 169), so it has been returned to
"extension" status.  See also issues <A HREF="1946.html">1946</A> and <A HREF="2010.html">2010</A>.</P>

<BR><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
