Why doesn’t C++ use std::nested_exception to allow throwing from destructor?

There is one use for std::nested exception, and only one use (as far as I have been able to discover).

Having said that, it’s fantastic, I use nested exceptions in all my programs and as a result the time spent hunting obscure bugs is almost zero.

This is because nesting exceptions allow you to easily build a fully-annotated call stack which is generated at the point of the error, without any runtime overhead, no need for copious logging during a re-run (which will change the timing anyway), and without polluting program logic with error handling.

for example:

#include <iostream>
#include <exception>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <sstream>
#include <string>

// this function will re-throw the current exception, nested inside a
// new one. If the std::current_exception is derived from logic_error, 
// this function will throw a logic_error. Otherwise it will throw a
// runtime_error
// The message of the exception will be composed of the arguments
// context and the variadic arguments args... which may be empty.
// The current exception will be nested inside the new one
// @pre context and args... must support ostream operator <<
template<class Context, class...Args>
void rethrow(Context&& context, Args&&... args)
{
    // build an error message
    std::ostringstream ss;
    ss << context;
    auto sep = " : ";
    using expand = int[];
    void (expand{ 0, ((ss << sep << args), sep = ", ", 0)... });
    // figure out what kind of exception is active
    try {
        std::rethrow_exception(std::current_exception());
    }
    catch(const std::invalid_argument& e) {
        std::throw_with_nested(std::invalid_argument(ss.str()));
    }
    catch(const std::logic_error& e) {
        std::throw_with_nested(std::logic_error(ss.str()));
    }
    // etc - default to a runtime_error 
    catch(...) {
        std::throw_with_nested(std::runtime_error(ss.str()));
    }
}

// unwrap nested exceptions, printing each nested exception to 
// std::cerr
void print_exception (const std::exception& e, std::size_t depth = 0) {
    std::cerr << "exception: " << std::string(depth, ' ') << e.what() << '\n';
    try {
        std::rethrow_if_nested(e);
    } catch (const std::exception& nested) {
        print_exception(nested, depth + 1);
    }
}

void really_inner(std::size_t s)
try      // function try block
{
    if (s > 6) {
        throw std::invalid_argument("too long");
    }
}
catch(...) {
    rethrow(__func__);    // rethrow the current exception nested inside a diagnostic
}

void inner(const std::string& s)
try
{
    really_inner(s.size());

}
catch(...) {
    rethrow(__func__, s); // rethrow the current exception nested inside a diagnostic
}

void outer(const std::string& s)
try
{
    auto cpy = s;
    cpy.append(s.begin(), s.end());
    inner(cpy);
}
catch(...)
{
    rethrow(__func__, s); // rethrow the current exception nested inside a diagnostic
}


int main()
{
    try {
        // program...
        outer("xyz");
        outer("abcd");
    }
    catch(std::exception& e)
    {
        // ... why did my program fail really?
        print_exception(e);
    }

    return 0;
}

expected output:

exception: outer : abcd
exception:  inner : abcdabcd
exception:   really_inner
exception:    too long

Explanation of the expander line for @Xenial:

void (expand{ 0, ((ss << sep << args), sep = ", ", 0)... });

args is a parameter pack. It represents 0 or more arguments (the zero is important).

What we’re looking to do is to get the compiler to expand the argument pack for us while writing useful code around it.

Let’s take it from outside in:

void(...) – means evaluate something and throw away the result – but do evaluate it.

expand{ ... };

Remembering that expand is a typedef for int[], this means let’s evaluate an integer array.

0, (...)...;

means the first integer is zero – remember that in c++ it’s illegal to define a zero-length array. What if args… represents 0 parameters? This 0 ensures that the array has at lease one integer in it.

(ss << sep << args), sep = ", ", 0);

uses the comma operator to evaluate a sequence of expressions in order, taking the result of the last one. The expressions are:

s << sep << args – print the separator followed by the current argument to the stream

sep = ", " – then make the separator point to a comma + space

0 – result in the value 0. This is the value that goes in the array.

(xxx params yyy)... – means do this once for each parameter in the parameter pack params

Therefore:

void (expand{ 0, ((ss << sep << args), sep = ", ", 0)... });

means “for every parameter in params, print it to ss after printing the separator. Then update the separator (so that we have a different separator for the first one). Do all this as part of initialising an imaginary array which we will then throw away.