[dwattttt]

Apologies, I believe I meant if the foo/bar/baz calls couldn't fail. If there's no exceptions, you don't need the cleanup block, but in the presence of exceptions you have to assume they (and all calls) can fail.

The problem re. there being a counter-example to exceptions (as implemented in C++) is that they're not opt-in or out where it makes sense. At least as I understand it, there's no way for foo/bar/baz to guarantee to you that they can't throw an exception, so you can rely on it (e.g. in a way that if this changes, you get a compiler error such that something you were relying on has changed). noexcept just results in the process being terminated on exception right?

[dataflow]

> I meant if the foo/bar/baz calls couldn't fail. If there's no exceptions, you don't need the cleanup block

First, I think you're making an incorrect assumption -- the assumption that "if (foo())" means "if foo() failed". That's not what it means at all. They could just as well be infallible functions doing things like:

  if (tasks.empty()) {
    printf("Nothing to do\n");
    return 1;
  }

or

  if (items.size() == 1) {
    return items[0];
  }

Second, even ignoring that, you'd still need the cleanup block! The fact that it is next to the setup statement (i.e. locality of information) is extremely important from a code health and maintainability standpoint. Having setup & cleanup be a dozen lines away from each other makes it far too easy to miss or forget one of them when the other is modified. Putting them next to each other prevents them from going out of sync and diverging over time.

Finally, your foo() and bar() calls can actually begin to fail in the future when more functionality is added to them. Heck, they might call a user callback that performs arbitrary tasks. Then your code will break too. Whereas with the cleanup block, it'll continue to be correct.

What you're doing is simplifying code by making very strong and brittle -- not to mention unguaranteed in almost all cases -- assumptions on how it looks during initial authorship, and assuming the code will remain static throughout the lifetime of your own code. In that context, putting them together seems "unnecessary", yeah. But point-in-time programming is not software engineering. The situation is radically different when you factor in what can go wrong during updates and maintenance.

[dwattttt]

> Moreover, your foo() and bar() calls can actually begin to fail in the future when more functionality is added to them. Heck, they might call a user callback that performs arbitrary tasks. Then your code will break too. Whereas with the cleanup block, it'll continue to be correct.

In a language without exceptions, I'm also assuming that a function conveys whether it can fail via it's prototype; in Rust, changing a function from "returns nothing" to "returns a Result" will result in a warning that you're not handling it

> What you're doing is simplifying code by making very strong assumptions on how it looks during initial authorship, and assuming the code will remain static throughout the lifetime of your own code.

But this is where the burden of exceptions is most pronounced; if you code as if everything can fail, there's no "additional" burden, you're paying it all the time. The case you're missing is in the simpler side, where it's possible for something to not fail, and that if that changes, your compiler tells you.

It can even become quite a great boon, because infallibility is transitive; if every operation you do can't fail, you can't fail.

[dataflow]

No. I've mentioned this multiple times but I feel like you're still missing what I'm saying about maintainability. (You didn't even reply to it at all.)

To be very clear, I was explaining why, even if you somehow have a guarantee here that absolutely nothing ever fails, this code:

  stack.push_back(k);
  absl::Cleanup _ = [&] { assert(stack.back() == k); stack.pop_back(); }
  foo();
  bar();
  baz();
  return 3;

is still better than this code w.r.t. maintainability and robustness:

  stack.push_back(k);
  foo();
  bar();
  baz();
  assert(stack.back() == k);
  stack.pop_back();
  return 3;

The reason, as I explained above, is the following:

>> The fact that it is next to the setup statement (i.e. locality of information) is extremely important from a code health and maintainability standpoint. Having setup & cleanup be a dozen lines away from each other makes it far too easy to miss or forget one of them when the other is modified. Putting them next to each other prevents them from going out of sync and diverging over time.

Fallibility is absolutely irrelevant to this point. It's about not splitting the source of truth into two separate spots in the code. This technique kills multiple birds at once, and handling errors better in the aforementioned cases is merely one of its benefits, but you should be doing it regardless.

Do you see what I mean?

[dwattttt]

I do, but I'm still expecting things to be more complicated than that example.

For instance, this is the the scenario I expect to be harder to manage with exceptions & cleanup:

  this.len += 1;
  foo();
  this.len += 1;
  bar();
  this.len += 1;
  baz();
  return ...;

Without infallibility, you need a separate cleanup scope for each call you make. With this, the change to the private variable is still next to the operation that changes it, you just don't need to manage another control flow at the same time.

EDIT: sorry, had the len's in the wrong spot before

[dataflow]

> I do, but I'm still expecting things to be more complicated than that example.

They're not. I've done this all the time, in the vast majority of cases it's perfectly fine. It sounds like you might not have tried this in practice -- I would recommend giving it a shot before judging it, it's quite an improvement in quality of life once you're used to it.

But in any large codebase you're going to find occasional situations complicated enough to obviate whatever generic solution anyone made for you. In the worst case you'll legitimately need gotos or inline assembly. That's life, nobody says everything has a canned solution. You can't make sweeping arguments about entire coding patterns just because you can come up with the edge cases.

> Without infallibility, you need a separate cleanup scope for each call you make.

So your goal here is to restore the length, and you're assuming everything is infallible (as inadvisable as that often is)? The solution is still pretty darn simple:

  absl::Cleanup _ = [&, old_len = len] { len = old_len; };
  foo();
  this.len += 1;
  bar();
  this.len += 1;
  baz();
  this.len += 1;
  return ...;

No need for a separate cleanup for every increment.

[dwattttt]

We may have to agree to disagree. I'm trying to convey a function that would need a different cleanup to occur after each call if they were to fail, e.g. reducing the len by one (though that is the same here too).