This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of C++11 status.

### 1130. `copy_exception` name misleading

Section: 17.10.7 [propagation] Status: C++11 Submitter: Peter Dimov Opened: 2009-05-13 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all other issues in [propagation].

View all issues with C++11 status.

Discussion:

The naming of `std::copy_exception` misleads almost everyone (experts included!) to think that it is the function that copies an `exception_ptr`:

>     exception_ptr p1 = current_exception();
>     exception_ptr p2 = copy_exception( p1 );

But this is not at all what it does. The above actually creates an `exception_ptr p2` that contains a copy of `p1`, not of the exception to which `p1` refers!

This is, of course, all my fault; in my defence, I used `copy_exception` because I was unable to think of a better name.

But I believe that, based on what we've seen so far, any other name would be better.

Therefore, I propose `copy_exception` to be renamed to `create_exception`:

>     template<class E> exception_ptr create_exception(E e);

with the following explanatory paragraph after it:

> Creates an `exception_ptr` that refers to a copy of `e`.

[ 2009-05-13 Daniel adds: ]

> What about

> >     make_exception_ptr

> in similarity to `make_pair` and `make_tuple`, `make_error_code` and `make_error_condition`, or `make_shared`? Or, if a stronger symmetry to `current_exception` is preferred:

> >     make_exception

> We have not a single `create_*` function in the library, it was always `make_*` used.

[ 2009-05-13 Peter adds: ]

> `make_exception_ptr` works for me.

[ 2009-06-02 Thomas J. Gritzan adds: ]

> To avoid surprises and unwanted recursion, how about making a call to `std::make_exception_ptr` with an `exception_ptr` illegal?

> It might work like this:

> >     template<class E>
> >     exception_ptr make_exception_ptr(E e);
> >     template<>
> >     exception_ptr make_exception_ptr<exception_ptr>(exception_ptr e) = delete;

[ 2009 Santa Cruz: ]

> Move to Review for the time being. The subgroup thinks this is a good idea, but doesn't want to break compatibility unnecessarily if someone is already shipping this. Let's talk to Benjamin and PJP tomorrow to make sure neither objects.

[ 2009-11-16 Jonathan Wakely adds: ]

> GCC 4.4 shipped with `copy_exception` but we could certainly keep that symbol in the library (but not the headers) so it can still be found by any apps foolishly relying on the experimental C++0x mode being ABI stable.

[ 2009-11-16 Peter adopts wording supplied by Daniel. ]

[ 2009-11-16 Moved to Tentatively Ready after 5 positive votes on c++std-lib. ]

Proposed resolution:

1. Change 17.10 [support.exception]/1, header `<exception>` synopsis as indicated:

   >     exception_ptr current_exception();
   >     void rethrow_exception [[noreturn]] (exception_ptr p);
   >     template<class E> exception_ptr copy_exceptionmake_exception_ptr(E e);

2. Change 17.10.7 [propagation]:

   >     template<class E> exception_ptr copy_exceptionmake_exception_ptr(E e);

   > > -11- Effects: Creates an `exception_ptr` that refers to a copy of `e`, as if

   > > >     try {
   > > >       throw e;
   > > >     } catch(...) {
   > > >       return current_exception();
   > > >     }

   > > ...

3. Change 33.10.6 [futures.promise]/7 as indicated:

   > Effects: if the associated state of `*this` is not ready, stores an exception object of type `future_error` with an error code of `broken_promise` as if by `this->set_exception(copy_exceptionmake_exception_ptr( future_error(future_errc::broken_promise))`. Destroys ...