=== on 6 Nov 2018, 20:06:46 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~loic.joly] this phrase is odd to me "hard real-time applications" . I doubt "hard" is what you mean here (unless it's an industry term I'm unaware of?).


Also, this seems to come out of nowhere:


____
Even if you choose not to use exceptions in your code, it's important to decorate as noexcept some functions (for instance, move constructors that do not throw), because this decoration can be detected by type traits, and some meta-programming techniques rely on this information.
____


Does this mean you'll raise an issue if I don't use ``++noexcept++``?. Also, _which_ functions other than move constructors?

=== on 7 Nov 2018, 09:10:20 Loïc Joly wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Hard real-time is a term I've heard in many places, and I've just checked \https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing where it is present.


No, we're not going to check anything related to noexcept (in this rule).  No longer. Current implementation flags ``++noexcept++`` as a violation, which is wrong: even if ``++noexcept++`` is something related to exceptions, it is valid to use it in a context where exception are forbidden.


I updated this RSPEC in preparation for the correction of the related false positive reported in SUPPORT-10182.


I changed the formulation, trying to make it clearer. Tell me what you think?



=== on 7 Nov 2018, 20:18:45 Ann Campbell wrote:
It's clearer [~loic.joly]. Also, it's not immediately clear to me why catching the exceptions from the code someone else wrote that I'm forced to use would raise an issue. A little expansion on that topic might be helpful.

=== on 8 Nov 2018, 09:48:24 Loïc Joly wrote:
From what I've seen from people who want to avoid exceptions, it's not that they want to avoid them in their code, they want to avoid them in the whole program (even disabling exception support in the compiler). If they use external code that might throw:

* Either they make sure to use it only in way that won't trigger an exception (just a subset of the API, or manually checking some stuff _before_ calling throwing functions)
* Or they just don't use it

I'm not sure how to explain that however. I'm not even sure it needs explaining for the users who decided to opt-in this rule;)

