How to handle improper input files - c++

I am starting a project and I am wondering on best practices for handling errors during file input handling. My current plan for the project involves a process in main along the lines of:
unique_ptr<Configuration> config(initConfig(argc,argv));
unique_ptr<InterfaceA> a(initA(config));
// Do real work here
The initialization data for the Configuration class and all other classes will be contained in a header for their input files such as:
#ObjectA-1
The ObjectA tells me I have a file meant to be turned into an object that fulfills InterfaceA, and the 1 tells me which specific implementation of that interface to use.
My question is in error handling for functions such as initConfig and initA. Inside of those functions I will parse the first line of their respective files, and decode the above information. If, let's say, in initA I happen to get a file that does not have the appropriate header, be it #ObjectB-3, or no header at all. I see two ways to go about handling the error:
Throw an exception that will be caught in main. This will allow me to print an error, then bypass other init functions via an error flag, and do any high level clean up I need to. The bad part of this is that my main is them mostly made of exception handling, which makes the code much harder to read.
Print an error from inside the init function, then call exit(EXIT_FAILURE) and lean on my OS to do the cleanup of the previously allocated memory. This would likely lead to cleaner code and more local error handling.
I personally would prefer the second if it wasn't for the use of the exit function.


I use the following rules to perform error handling:
Is it an exceptional occurrence that the calling code should handle if it can? If so, throw an exception. Sometimes "exceptional" is hard to define, so think about it more like "should this ever happen?" I think in this case you should be throwing exceptions and main should be handling them if it makes sense to.
There are two groups of exceptions defined by the standard. First there's those that inherit from std::logic_error. These are usually thrown when the calling code has broken your function's contract. Then there's those that inherit from std::runtime_error, which are used for errors that can only be detected at run-time. This sounds exactly like yours. It only knows that there is a problem with the file when it reads it.
Of course, you can throw your own exception types if you like.
Is it an error which is considered normal and may be ignored by the calling code? This might be an appropriate use of error codes.
Is it a logical error internal to your code? This makes more sense as an assert. You should use asserts to verify that what you're doing actually makes sense. A stupid example would be int y = 5; y++; assert(y == 6);. Think of it as insurance against stupid mistakes.
So as I've said, your problem sounds like a good place to use exceptions. There should be absolutely no issues with memory allocation if you use RAII correctly. That is, all memory deallocation should be done in the destruction of objects. Destructors are still called even when exceptions are thrown.

Related

In C++, Is it possible to force the user to catch exceptions?

In short, is it possible to get C++ to force the invoker of a method to put a try...catch block?
(To clarify:
I don't necessarily mean the immediate invoker, I mean forcing the fact that it's caught somewhere. Also, I'm talking about forcing at compile time.)
The long:
I've read that it not recommended to use exception specification and that it doesn't work properly anyway (http://4thmouse.com/mystuff/articles/UsingExceptionsEffectively.html)
But the general consensus seems to favor the use of exceptions to return errors over the user of writing methods that return error codes.
So if I'm writing say a library, what's to stop the user from calling my method without putting any try...catch blocks, and then getting his program crashing when my code throws an exception?
(To be clear, I only require the exception to be caught somewhere in the users stack, not necessarily in the immediate calling code, and the compiler to complain if this is not the case.)

No, it is not.
Indeed, there is no mechanism to force the caller of a function (anywhere in the call stack) to handle any kind of error. At least, not via a compilation failure. Return values can be discarded. Even bundling error codes with return values (via expected<T, E>) doesn't issue a compile-time error if the user doesn't actually check to see if the value is available before fetching it.
C++17 may give us the [[nodiscard]] attribute, which allows compilers to issue a warning if a return value (presumably an error code) is discarded by the caller. But a compile-time warning will be as close as you can get.

In short, is it possible to get C++ to force the invoker of a method
to put a try...catch block?
No. This would defeat the whole purpose of exceptions. Exceptions are specifically made for the use case of propagating errors across multiple layers without the intermediate layers being aware of them.
Let's say you have a call hierarchy like A -> B -> C -> D -> E, and an error occurs in E. A can handle the error. B, C and D do not need to be aware of the error at all. This is exactly what exceptions are good for!
If you want to return an error directly to the caller because handling the error is indeed the caller's concern, then an exception is often the wrong design and a return value might be the better choice.
"Enforced" exceptions of a certain form have been tried in Java, but I'd consider it a failed experiment, as it usually results in code like this:
try {
method();
} catch (SomeCheckedException ex) {
// ignore
}
That C++ does not encourage this should be considered a feature.
I've read that it not recommended to use exception specification and
that it doesn't work properly anyway
Exactly. The only exception specification which was ever useful and which worked was throw() to signal that no exception at all is thrown, and that one has been superseded in C++11 by noexcept.
But the general consensus seems to favor the use of exceptions to
return errors over the user of writing methods that return error
codes.
See above. It depends on whether you want an error to propagate or if the caller can and should handle it.
So if I'm writing say a library, what's to stop the user from calling
my method without putting any try...catch blocks, and then getting his
program crashing when my code throws an exception?
A library which requires its user to surround all function calls with try blocks has a bad interface and should be redesigned, accordingly.
Also... you assume that a "program" will use your library. But this assumption will not always be true. The library client may itself be a library. There may be a lot of different library layers between the program and your library. You use exceptions if you do not care which layer handles them.

There's a general consensus? Not that I'm aware of. As for the exceptions, no. The compiler cannot enforce that somebody catches the exception somewhere up the call stack. At compile time, the compiler has no idea who may be calling your function, and your function may throw any arbitrary exception, as may any function that your function calls. The linker might have a chance, but it would have to maintain a lot of extra information dealing with what exceptions a function may throw, as well as what exceptions a function may catch. This gets even uglier when you start to talk about dynamically loaded libraries (DLL/.so) as that would have to get resolved at runtime.

How to handle failed methods: by using exceptions or making the methods return bool?

How to handle failed methods:
using exceptions
making the methods return bool
The first approach is when something goes wrong to throw an exception.
But the problematic code needs to be placed in a try block,
and then you need to write the catch block.
The second approach you need to check the return value from
the method, and then do something.
So basically isn't it the same mechanism? You have two parts:
detecting that something goes wrong and then doing something about it.
So does it matter then which approach I use?

The main benefit with exceptions is that they are non-local. You can catch an exception several invocation layers away from where it was thrown. That way, code in between doesn't have to care about exceptions (except ensuring proper cleanup during unwinding, i.e. being exception safe), which makes it less likely that an exceptional situation gets forgotten. But this benefit comes at a price: stack unwinding is more complicated than simply returning a value. In terms of performance, the return value approach is usually simpler.
So I'd use these to choose: if for some reason the only reasonable place to deal with a problem is directly at the location where the function was called, and if you are fairly certain that every caller will include some kind of error handling code in any case, and is not likely to forget doing so, then a return value would be best. Otherwise, I'd go for an exception.

Basically you can reach the same behavior with both approaches, but Exception can give 2 added values:
1) You don't have to handle the error in the exact calling method, it can be anywhere up the call stack. this remove the if(!doSomthing()) return false; from the code when you just want to pass the error up.
2) It allow you to write a block of code, under one try and handle all the errors under it in one catch block.

There is no simple answer. For instance, here is the conclusion of the article C++ Exceptions: Pros and Cons
There is no simple answer to the "exceptions or error codes" question. The decision needs to be made based on a specific situation that a development team faces. Some rough guidelines may be:
If you have a good development process and code standards that are actually being followed, if you are writing modern-style C++ code that relies on RAII to clean up resources for you, if your code base is modular, using exceptions may be a good idea.
If you are working with code that was not written with exception safety in mind, if you feel there is a lack of discipline in your development team, or if you are developing hard real-time systems, you should probably not use exceptions.

My personal rule is to raise exception only when something exceptional occurs, ie when the problem may not have appeared at all. Otherwise I use return value (most of the time).
For example, when searching for a file that MUST exists, not finding it raises an exception. But if the file may or may not exists, not finding it is not exceptional so no need for an exception.

There's no answer for all situations. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses:
Exceptions:
are slightly more verbose to handle locally
can simply be ignored if the error can't be handled locally
can carry as much information as you like about the error, both statically (in the exception type) and dynamically (in the thrown object)
require a handler somewhere to avoid terminating the program
may have more runtime overhead (but may have less when nothing is thrown, depending on how they're implemented)
require the code to be exception safe
Return values:
must be manually passed up the stack if not handled locally: prone to bugs if you forget
have a fixed type, limiting how much information they can carry (although you could return a pointer to a polymorphic type, and deal with the associated lifetime management issues)
are awkward to use if the function also needs to return something on success

There are two main differences: (a) it is easier for the calling code to just silently ignore the boolean status code. (b) Exceptions provide more context than mere false. You can distinguish business-logic errors from I/O errors from input validation errors etc.

I prefer bools. I'd say its personal preference.
I have found it easier to read.

How to change my error handling method

I can't seem to get my head around why people say C++ exceptions are better. For example, I have an application which loads function objects from shared objects to be used in the application. What goes on is something like this:
bool LoadFunctions()
{
//Get Function factory.
FunctionFactory& oFactory = GetFunctionFactory();
//Create functions from the factory and use.
}
FunctionFactory& GetFunctionFactory()
{
//Get shared object handle.
void* pHandle = dlopen("someso.so");
//Get function ptr for Factory getter.
typedef FunctionFactory* (*tpfFacGet)();
tpfFacGet pF = static_cast<tpfFacGet>(dlsym(pHandle, "GetFactory"));
//Call function and return object.
return *((*pF)());
}
Now, it's easy to see that loads of stuff can go wrong. If I did it like I always do, I'd return pointers instead of references, and I'd check if they were NULL and print an error message and get out if they weren't. That way, I know where things went wrong and I can even try to recover from that (i.e. If I successfully load the factory and fail to load just a single function, I may still continue). What I don't understand is how to use exceptions in such a scenario and how to recover the program rather than printing an error message and qutting. Can someone tell me how I am to do this in C++ish way?

We don't even need return codes. If a problem occurs it should be in the exception.
int main()
{
try
{
LoadFunctions();
// if we're here, everything succeeded!
}
catch(std::exception _e)
{
// output exception message, quit gracefully
}
// IRRESPECTIVE OF SUCCESS/FAILURE WE END UP HERE
return 0;
} // eo main
EDIT:
Okay, so lets say that you have an alternative method of loading functions should LoadFunctions() fail. You might be tempted to call that in the catch handler, but this way you'll quickly end up with a huge amount of nested exception handlers which just complicates things.
So now we get down to the question of design. LoadFunctions should succeed if functions are loaded and throw out an exception if it does not. In this hypothetical example of an alternative method of loading functions, that call should be within the LoadFunctions method. This alternative method does not need to be visible to the caller.
At the top level we either end up with functions, or we do not. Writing good exception handling, in my opinion is about getting rid of grey areas. The function did what it was told to do, or it didn't.

There is, as you say, a lot that can go wrong. You won't catch a bad cast there by the way. If the symbol exists but is not the type you are casting it to, you will just get a nasty shock later.
If you were to avoid exceptions you will need somewhere to report the error. As your LoadFunctions and GetFunctionFactory() do not know how you wish to handle the error (log it? print it to stderr? Put up a message box?) The only thing it can do is generate the error.
A common way do to that in C is to pass in a parameter into which it can put the error if one occurs, and for each function to "check" success before continuing. This can make the flow rather tricky.
The C++ concept of "throwing" the exception means that you do not need to keep passing a pointer (or reference) through each function. Where the error occurs you generate it and "throw" it - a bit like "shouting" it. This causes all code (other than cleanup in destructors) to halt until it finds a catcher that handles the error the way that is required.
Note that exceptions should only generally be used to handle errors, not a normal occurrence like encountering "end of file" when this is the way you know a read has completed.

Using exceptions instead of return-values (or any other method) is not supposed to change the behaviour of the code, only how it is written and organized. That means basically that first you decide what your recovery of a certain error is, be it more graceful or less, then you write the code to perform that.
Most experienced programmers (all practically) agree that exceptions are a much better method than return values. You can't see the big difference in short examples of a few functions, but in real systems of thousands of functions and types you would see it clearly. I will not get into more details of how it is better.
I suggest anyway you should just get yourself used to using exceptions by default. However note that using exceptions has some somewhat delicate issues (e.g. RAII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAII), that ultimately make your code better, but you should read about them in a book (I won't be able to describe here and feel that I do justice to the subject).
I think the book "Effective c++ / Scott Meyer" deals with that, certainly "Exceptional C++ / Herb Sutter". These books are a good jump start for any c++ developer if you havent read them anyway.

Why use exception instead of returning error code [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Exceptions or error codes
Hi,
I am looking for some guidelines on when to use return values v/s exceptions.
Many thanks in advance.

Errors are often detected at a very low level in your code, but handled at a very high level. If you use return codes for these, you have to design all the intermediate levels to expect the low level code and propagate it up until something handles it. With exceptions, you only need to throw at the low level, and catch at the high level (if at all). As long as your intermediate level code uses RAII, you don't have to change any of that to do the error propagation.
So I often think about the type of error and where it's likely to be handled. If the caller is likely to handle the problem, because it's expected to be a common thing, then a return code is great. If the error is something catastrophic (cannot allocate a necessary resource), then the immediate caller cannot be expected to handle it.
Other things to consider: Exceptions cannot be ignored, return codes can. Use an exception when it would be dangerous for the problem to go unhandled.
Technically, exceptions cannot propagate back up through C code. (It works on many systems, but it's not portable nor guaranteed.) So if you've got a C library calling back into your C++ code, you probably shouldn't throw an exception from the callback. Likewise for thread boundaries, etc.

Some of this might repeat content, but here are simple hints as to use one or the other:
No proper sentinel value
Your function might not be able to use a sentinel value to signal an error because all possible values are used by the function as valid answers. This may happen in different situations, most notably integer numerical algorithms. 0 and -1 are often used as special values but some fairly common algorithms, including pow might not be able to use those (i.e. 0^1=0 and -1^3=-1). Therefore, choosing proper values becomes somewhat of an art, consistancy is an issue and users have to remember the error value for each and every special case.
Some APIs recognize this and (almost) never use a real return value but consistently rely on return-by-reference semantics and use the return value in all functions as a status code, being either some (standard) "success" value, or a function-specific error code. CUDA, for instance, has such a convention.
Propagate by default
Error codes are often stated to be "more efficient" (a comment in one of the other answers explains why this is not necessarily true). However, they suffer from 2 common problems.
You have to manually propagate the error up the call stack. This is often omitted (especially in example code and books, which is very irritating) because it litters the code with tiresome and error-prone handling code.
Erros are diluted at high levels because error codes between different APIs are often impossible to concialiate. Moreover, designing you own error codes that cover the union of all libraries' error codes is a herculian task.This is why, in many applications, you get an The operation failed. message instead of Ran out of disk space..
To address (1), exceptions are propagated by default. Intentionally ignoring an error becomes obvious in the code, instead of hidden. To address (2), exceptions use type system, preventing you from compiling a program that has conflicting error "values". Morever, using an exception class hierarchy you can represent "families" of related results. (Note: this is often misused, and people catch Exception instead of NoMoreDiskSpace and still display the generic The operation failed. message).
A matter of consistancy
Some people will recommend a mixture of both in their applications, but IMHO, this leads to a situation where both the systems are mis-used. In these hybrid conventions, exceptions are often not caught and error-codes not checked because of confusion. On one hand, because exceptions are used only for exceptional situations, it is assumed they will never occur, or simply cannot be handled. On the other hand, a failure returning an error code is assumed to be minor and is not handled at all. And of course it is left up to each programmer to decide whether an situation is exceptional or not, leading to lots of confusion between what error codes to check and what exceptions to catch.
Which ever system you choose, be sure to use it at its full strength, and be consistent about its use.

You can look at exceptions and return values as two different methods of communication between callers and callee's. Return value being nice and quick way of informing parent about stuff, and exception being the rude cousin, one that you can fire and let others know how bad it is 'down there'.
If you write code that tries to handle every situation, you'll fill it with return values, error codes etc. If you omit handling some situation that occurs log way down on the call stack, and want quick resolution for this - someone will show MessageBox at this point - but you can throw, and handle it at any appropriate level above. Maybe that's the answer to your question!
On second thought, here are some rules that might apply:
use bool return values for simple success/fail situations
use enum return values for somewhat more complex situations
use ret. values for classes that know of each other, for example that serve same purpose or are in same module
use exceptions to throw far and account for unforeseen situations. Translate system errors that are not previously thought of to some exception of yours that you can handle on some higher level
I guess that both methods are here to stay. With time, your judgement will say which to use on each occasion.

There is a performance impact when exceptions are thrown that is the reason why error codes are used for more frequent error conditions. Save exceptions for truly out of the ordinary problems.
For example - in the STL, std::find does not throw if no match is located. But vector::push-back throws if memory is exhausted.

C++ exceptions are supposed to be used only for exceptional errors.
They are particularly useful for when an error is so bad that the calling function can't, or indeed shouldn't, handle it, e.g. a memory exhaustion. A thrown exception unwinds the stack until the first try block that it sees (or maybe the first try block with an appropriate catch, which would make more sense). This allows you to catch an exceptional error from a deeply nested function call, and be guaranteed that the stack is clean down to the function with the try block.
This all comes with overhead though, so use return codes when you can handle the (unexceptional) error inside the calling routine.

Along with the discussions already presented in the questions linked to by bjskishore123 in his comment, there is a very interesting historical back-and-forth between Ned Batchelder and Joel Spolsky on the subject. You may not entirely agree with Ned, but his argument is well thought out and worth a read.

Life is simple if your function has nothing to return - it can return a success/fail code. But when your function already has a meaning to its return value then you need to use "signal values" to return error codes. Find methods that return -1, for example, are using signal values. Sometimes it's almost impossible to come up with good signal values. If a function returns the next available date, what shoud it return when there is no available date? There's really no "-1" type date. So this is one case where exceptions are a very helpful mechanism. (This also handles functions like constructors that don't return anything.)
Yes, throwing and catching an exception is slightly more expensive than checking an error code. But it can't be forgotten and many people find it more expressive. And, as mentioned in other answers, when there is a cascade of function calls it's awkward to have all the intermediary calls check the return value and pass it along back up the chain.

Use error codes when it is not unusual for something to go wrong. For example, code that opens a file or makes a network connection should not return exceptions - it is very common for there to be problems.
Use exceptions when it is unusual for something to go wrong - the failure is truly exceptional.
So, that can be simplified to:
Use error codes most of the time.

Why should exceptions be used conservatively?

I often see/hear people say that exceptions should only be used rarely, but never explain why. While that may be true, rationale is normally a glib: "it's called an exception for a reason" which, to me, seems to be the sort of explanation that should never be accepted by a respectable programmer/engineer.
There is a range of problems that an exception can be used to solve. Why is it unwise to use them for control flow? What is the philosophy behind being exceptionally conservative with how they are used? Semantics? Performance? Complexity? Aesthetics? Convention?
I've seen some analysis on performance before, but at a level that would be relevant to some systems and irrelevant to others.
Again, I don't necessarily disagree that they should be saved for special circumstances, but I'm wondering what the consensus rationale is (if such a thing exists).

The primary point of friction is semantics. Many developers abuse exceptions and throw them at every opportunity. The idea is to use exception for somewhat exceptional situation. For example, wrong user input does not count as an exception because you expect this to happen and ready for that. But if you tried to create a file and there was not enough space on disk, then yes, this is a definite exception.
One other issue is that exceptions are often thrown and swallowed. Developers use this technique to simply "silence" the program and let it run as long as possible until completely collapsing. This is very wrong. If you don't process exceptions, if you don't react appropriately by freeing some resources, if you don't log the exception occurrence or at least not notify the user, then you're not using exception for what they are meant.
Answering directly your question. Exceptions should rarely be used because exceptional situations are rare and exceptions are expensive.
Rare, because you don't expect your program crash at every button press or at every malformed user input. Say, database may suddenly not be accessible, there may not be enough space on disk, some third party service you depend on is offline, this all can happen, but quite rarely, these would be clear exceptional cases.
Expensive, because throwing an exception will interrupt the normal program flow. The runtime will unwind the stack until it finds an appropriate exception handler that can handle the exception. It will also gather the call information all along the way to be passed to the exception object the handler will receive. It all has costs.
This is not to say that there can be no exception to using exceptions (smile). Sometimes it can simplify the code structure if you throw an exception instead of forwarding return codes via many layers. As a simple rule, if you expect some method to be called often and discover some "exceptional" situation half the time then it is better to find another solution. If however you expect normal flow of operation most of the time while this "exceptional" situation can only emerge in some rare circumstances, then it is just fine to throw an exception.
#Comments: Exception can definitely be used in some less-exceptional situations if that could make your code simpler and easier. This option is open but I'd say it comes quite rare in practice.
Why is it unwise to use them for control flow?
Because exceptions disrupt normal "control flow". You raise an exception and normal execution of the program is abandoned potentially leaving objects in inconsistent state and some open resources unfreed. Sure, C# has the using statement which will make sure the object will be disposed even if an exception is thrown from the using body. But let us abstract for the moment from the language. Suppose the framework won't dispose objects for you. You do it manually. You have some system for how to request and free resources and memory. You have agreement system-wide who is responsible for freeing objects and resources in what situations. You have rules how to deal with external libraries. It works great if the program follows the normal operation flow. But suddenly in the middle of execution you throw an exception. Half of the resources are left unfreed. Half have not been requested yet. If the operation was meant to be transactional now it is broken. Your rules for handling resources will not work because those code parts responsible for freeing resources simply won't execute. If anybody else wanted to use those resources they may find them in inconsistent state and crash as well because they could not predict this particular situation.
Say, you wanted a method M() call method N() to do some work and arrange for some resource then return it back to M() which will use it and then dispose it. Fine. Now something goes wrong in N() and it throws an exception you didn't expect in M() so the exception bubbles to the top until it maybe gets caught in some method C() which will have no idea what was happening deep down in N() and whether and how to free some resources.
With throwing exceptions you create a way to bring your program into many new unpredictable intermediate states which are hard to prognose, understand and deal with. It's somewhat similar to using GOTO. It is very hard to design a program that can randomly jump its execution from one location to the other. It will also be hard to maintain and debug it. When the program grows in complexity, you just going to lose an overview of what when and where is happening less to fix it.

While "throw exceptions in exceptional cirumstances" is the glib answer, you can actually define what those circumstances are: when preconditions are satisfied, but postconditions cannot be satisfied. This allows you to write stricter, tighter, and more useful postconditions without sacrificing error-handling; otherwise, without exceptions, you have to change the postcondition to allow for every possible error state.
Preconditions must be true before calling a function.
Postcondition is what the function guarantees after it returns.
Exception safety states how exceptions affect the internal consistency of a function or data structure, and often deal with behavior passed in from outside (e.g. functor, ctor of a template parameter, etc.).
Constructors
There's very little you can say about every constructor for every class that could possibly be written in C++, but there are a few things. Chief among them is that constructed objects (i.e. for which the constructor succeeded by returning) will be destructed. You cannot modify this postcondition because the language assumes it is true, and will call destructors automatically. (Technically you can accept the possibility of undefined behavior for which the language makes no guarantees about anything, but that is probably better covered elsewhere.)
The only alternative to throwing an exception when a constructor cannot succeed is to modify the basic definition of the class (the "class invariant") to allow valid "null" or zombie states and thus allow the constructor to "succeed" by constructing a zombie.
Zombie example
An example of this zombie modification is std::ifstream, and you must always check its state before you can use it. Because std::string, for example, doesn't, you are always guaranteed that you can use it immediately after construction. Imagine if you had to write code such as this example, and if you forgot to check for the zombie state, you'd either silently get incorrect results or corrupt other parts of your program:
string s = "abc";
if (s.memory_allocation_succeeded()) {
do_something_with(s); // etc.
}
Even naming that method is a good example of how you must modify the class' invariant and interface for a situation string can neither predict nor handle itself.
Validating input example
Let's address a common example: validating user input. Just because we want to allow for failed input doesn't mean the parsing function needs to include that in its postcondition. It does mean our handler needs to check if the parser fails, however.
// boost::lexical_cast<int>() is the parsing function here
void show_square() {
using namespace std;
assert(cin); // precondition for show_square()
cout << "Enter a number: ";
string line;
if (!getline(cin, line)) { // EOF on cin
// error handling omitted, that EOF will not be reached is considered
// part of the precondition for this function for the sake of example
//
// note: the below Python version throws an EOFError from raw_input
// in this case, and handling this situation is the only difference
// between the two
}
int n;
try {
n = boost::lexical_cast<int>(line);
// lexical_cast returns an int
// if line == "abc", it obviously cannot meet that postcondition
}
catch (boost::bad_lexical_cast&) {
cout << "I can't do that, Dave.\n";
return;
}
cout << n * n << '\n';
}
Unfortunately, this shows two examples of how C++'s scoping requires you to break RAII/SBRM. An example in Python which doesn't have that problem and shows something I wish C++ had – try-else:
# int() is the parsing "function" here
def show_square():
line = raw_input("Enter a number: ") # same precondition as above
# however, here raw_input will throw an exception instead of us
# using assert
try:
n = int(line)
except ValueError:
print "I can't do that, Dave."
else:
print n * n
Preconditions
Preconditions don't strictly have to be checked – violating one always indicates a logic failure, and they are the caller's responsibility – but if you do check them, then throwing an exception is appropriate. (In some cases it's more appropriate to return garbage or crash the program; though those actions can be horribly wrong in other contexts. How to best handle undefined behavior is another topic.)
In particular, contrast the std::logic_error and std::runtime_error branches of the stdlib exception hierarchy. The former is often used for precondition violations, while the latter is more suited for postcondition violations.

Expensive kernel calls (or other system API invocations) to manage kernel (system) signal interfaces
Hard to analyze Many of the problems of the goto statement apply to exceptions. They jump over potentially large amounts of code often in multiple routines and source files. This is not always apparent from reading the intermediate source code. (It is in Java.)
Not always anticipated by intermediate code The code that gets jumped over may or may not have been written with the possibility of an exception exit in mind. If originally so written, it may not have been maintained with that in mind. Think: memory leaks, file descriptor leaks, socket leaks, who knows?
Maintenance complications
It's harder to maintain code that jumps around processing exceptions.

Throwing an exception is, to some extent, similar to a goto statement. Do that for flow control, and you end with incomprehensible spaghetti code. Even worse, in some cases you do not even know where exactly the jump goes to (i.e. if you are not catching the exception in the given context). This blatantly violates the "least surprise" principle that enhances maintainability.

Exceptions make it harder to reason about the state of your program. In C++ for instance, you have to do extra thinking to ensure your functions are strongly exception safe, than you would have to do if they didn't need to be.
The reason is that without exceptions, a function call can either return, or it can terminate the program first. With exceptions, a function call can either return, or it can terminate the program, or it can jump to a catch block somewhere. So you can no longer follow the flow of control just by looking at the code in front of you. You need to know if the functions called can throw. You may need to know what can be thrown and where it's caught, depending on whether you care where control goes, or only care that it leaves the current scope.
For this reason, people say "don't use exceptions unless the situation is really exceptional". When you get down to it, "really exceptional" means "some situation has occurred where the benefits of handling it with an error return value are outweighed by the costs". So yes, this is something of an empty statement, although once you have some instincts for "really exceptional", it becomes a good rule of thumb. When people talk about flow control, they mean that the ability to reason locally (without reference to catch blocks) is a benefit of return values.
Java has a wider definition of "really exceptional" than C++. C++ programmers are more likely to want to look at the return value of a function than Java programmers, so in Java "really exceptional" might mean "I can't return a non-null object as the result of this function". In C++, it's more likely to mean "I very much doubt my caller can continue". So a Java stream throws if it can't read a file, whereas a C++ stream (by default) returns a value indicating error. In all cases, though, it is a matter of what code you are willing to force your caller to have to write. So it is indeed a matter of coding style: you have to reach a consensus what your code should look like, and how much "error-checking" code you want to write against how much "exception-safety" reasoning you want to do.
The broad consensus across all languages seems to be that this is best done in terms of how recoverable the error is likely to be (since unrecoverable errors result in no code with exceptions, but still need a check-and-return-your-own-error in code which uses error returns). So people come to expect "this function I call throws an exception" to mean "I can't continue", not just "it can't continue". That's not inherent in exceptions, it's just a custom, but like any good programming practice, it's a custom advocated by smart people who've tried it the other way and not enjoyed the results. I too have had bad experiences throwing too many exceptions. So personally, I do think in terms of "really exceptional", unless something about the situation makes an exception particularly attractive.
Btw, quite aside from reasoning about the state of your code, there are also performance implications. Exceptions are usually cheap now, in languages where you're entitled to care about performance. They can be faster than multiple levels of "oh, the result's an error, I'd best exit myself with an error too, then". In the bad old days, there were real fears that throwing an exception, catching it, and carrying on with the next thing, would make what you're doing so slow as to be useless. So in that case, "really exceptional" means, "the situation is so bad that horrific performance no longer matters". That's no longer the case (although an exception in a tight loop is still noticeable) and hopefully indicates why the definition of "really exceptional" needs to be flexible.

There really is no consensus. The whole issue is somewhat subjective, because the "appropriateness" of throwing an exception is often suggested by existing practices within the standard library of the language itself. The C++ standard library throws exceptions a lot less frequently than say, the Java standard library, which almost always prefers exceptions, even for expected errors such as invalid user input (e.g. Scanner.nextInt). This, I believe, significantly influences developer opinions about when it is appropriate to throw an exception.
As a C++ programmer, I personally prefer to reserve exceptions for very "exceptional" circumstances, e.g. out of memory, out of disk-space, the apocalypse happened, etc. But I don't insist that this is the absolute correct way to do things.

I don't think, that exceptions should rarely be used. But.
Not all teams and projects are ready to use exceptions. Usage of exceptions requires high qualification of programmers, special technics and lack of big legacy non exception-safe code. If you have huge old codebase, then it almost always is not exception-safe. I'm sure that you do not want to rewrite it.
If you are going to use exceptions extensively, then:
be prepared to teach your people about what exception safety is
you should not use raw memory management
use RAII extensively
From the other hand, using exceptions in new projects with strong team may make code cleaner, easier to maintain, and even faster:
you will not miss or ignore errors
you haven't to write that checks of return codes, without actually knowing what to do with wrong code at low-level
when you are forced to write exception-safe code, it becomes more structured

EDIT 11/20/2009:
I was just reading this MSDN article on improving managed code performance and this part reminded me of this question:
The performance cost of throwing an exception is significant. Although structured exception handling is the recommended way of handling error conditions, make sure you use exceptions only in exceptional circumstances when error conditions occur. Do not use exceptions for regular control flow.
Of course, this is only for .NET, and it's also directed specifically at those developing high-performance applications (like myself); so it's obviously not a universal truth. Still, there are a lot of us .NET developers out there, so I felt it was worth noting.
EDIT:
OK, first of all, let's get one thing straight: I have no intention of picking a fight with anyone over the performance question. In general, in fact, I am inclined to agree with those who believe premature optimization is a sin. However, let me just make two points:
The poster is asking for an objective rationale behind the conventional wisdom that exceptions should be used sparingly. We can discuss readability and proper design all we want; but these are subjective matters with people ready to argue on either side. I think the poster is aware of this. The fact is that using exceptions to control program flow is often an inefficient way of doing things. No, not always, but often. This is why it's reasonable advice to use exceptions sparingly, just like it's good advice to eat red meat or drink wine sparingly.
There is a difference between optimizing for no good reason and writing efficient code. The corollary to this is that there's a difference between writing something that is robust, if not optimized, and something that is just plain inefficient. Sometimes I think when people argue over things like exception handling they're really just talking past each other, because they are discussing fundamentally different things.
To illustrate my point, consider the following C# code examples.
Example 1: Detecting invalid user input
This is an example of what I'd call exception abuse.
int value = -1;
string input = GetInput();
bool inputChecksOut = false;
while (!inputChecksOut) {
try {
value = int.Parse(input);
inputChecksOut = true;
} catch (FormatException) {
input = GetInput();
}
}
This code is, to me, ridiculous. Of course it works. No one's arguing with that. But it should be something like:
int value = -1;
string input = GetInput();
while (!int.TryParse(input, out value)) {
input = GetInput();
}
Example 2: Checking for the existence of a file
I think this scenario is actually very common. It certainly seems a lot more "acceptable" to a lot of people, since it deals with file I/O:
string text = null;
string path = GetInput();
bool inputChecksOut = false;
while (!inputChecksOut) {
try {
using (FileStream fs = new FileStream(path, FileMode.Open)) {
using (StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(fs)) {
text = sr.ReadToEnd();
}
}
inputChecksOut = true;
} catch (FileNotFoundException) {
path = GetInput();
}
}
This seems reasonable enough, right? We're trying to open a file; if it's not there, we catch that exception and try to open a different file... What's wrong with that?
Nothing, really. But consider this alternative, which doesn't throw any exceptions:
string text = null;
string path = GetInput();
while (!File.Exists(path)) path = GetInput();
using (FileStream fs = new FileStream(path, FileMode.Open)) {
using (StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(fs)) {
text = sr.ReadToEnd();
}
}
Of course, if the performance of these two approaches were actually the same, this really would be purely a doctrinal issue. So, let's take a look. For the first code example, I made a list of 10000 random strings, none of which represented a proper integer, and then added a valid integer string onto the very end. Using both of the above approaches, these were my results:
Using try/catch block: 25.455 seconds
Using int.TryParse: 1.637 milliseconds
For the second example, I did basically the same thing: made a list of 10000 random strings, none of which was a valid path, then added a valid path onto the very end. These were the results:
Using try/catch block: 29.989 seconds
Using File.Exists: 22.820 milliseconds
A lot of people would respond to this by saying, "Yeah, well, throwing and catching 10,000 exceptions is extremely unrealistic; this exaggerates the results." Of course it does. The difference between throwing one exception and handling bad input on your own is not going to be noticeable to the user. The fact remains that using exceptions is, in these two case, from 1,000 to over 10,000 times slower than the alternative approaches that are just as readable -- if not more so.
That's why I included the example of the GetNine() method below. It isn't that it's intolerably slow or unacceptably slow; it's that it's slower than it should be... for no good reason.
Again, these are just two examples. Of course there will be times when the performance hit of using exceptions is not this severe (Pavel's right; after all, it does depend on the implementation). All I'm saying is: let's face the facts, guys -- in cases like the one above, throwing and catching an exception is analogous to GetNine(); it's just an inefficient way of doing something that could easily be done better.
You are asking for a rationale as if this is one of those situations where everyone's jumped on a bandwagon without knowing why. But in fact the answer is obvious, and I think you know it already. Exception handling has horrendous performance.
OK, maybe it's fine for your particularly business scenario, but relatively speaking, throwing/catching an exception introduces way more overhead than is necessary in many, many cases. You know it, I know it: most of the time, if you're using exceptions to control program flow, you're just writing slow code.
You might as well ask: why is this code bad?
private int GetNine() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
if (i == 9) return i;
}
}
I would bet that if you profiled this function you'd find it performs quite acceptably fast for your typical business application. That doesn't change the fact that it's a horribly inefficient way of accomplishing something that could be done a lot better.
That's what people mean when they talk about exception "abuse."

All of the rules of thumb about exceptions come down to subjective terms. You shouldn't expect to get hard and fast definitions of when to use them and when not to. "Only in exceptional circumstances". Nice circular definition: exceptions are for exceptional circumstances.
When to use exceptions falls into the same bucket as "how do I know whether this code is one class or two?" It's partly a stylistic issue, partly a preference. Exceptions are a tool. They can be used and abused, and finding the line between the two is part of the art and skill of programming.
There are lots of opinions, and tradeoffs to be made. Find something that speaks to you, and follow it.

It's not that exceptions should rarely be used. It's just that they should only be thrown in exceptional circumstances. For example, if a user enters the wrong password, that's not exceptional.
The reason is simple: exceptions exit a function abruptly, and propagate up the stack to a catch block. This process is very computationally expensive: C++ builds its exception system to have little overhead on "normal" function calls, so when an exception is raised, it has to do a lot of work to find where to go. Moreover, since every line of code could possibly raise an exception. If we have some function f that raises exceptions often, we now have to take care to use our try/catch blocks around every call of f. That's a pretty bad interface/implementation coupling.

I mentioned this issue in an article on C++ exceptions.
The relevant part:
Almost always, using exceptions to affect the "normal" flow is a bad idea. As we already discussed in section 3.1, exceptions generate invisible code paths. These code paths are arguably acceptable if they get executed only in the error handling scenarios. However, if we use exceptions for any other purpose, our "normal" code execution is divided into a visible and invisible part and it makes code very hard to read, understand and extend.

My approach to error handling is that there are three fundamental types of errors:
An odd situation that can be handled at the error site. This might be if a user inputs an invalid input at a command line prompt. The correct behavior is simply to complain to the user and loop in this case. Another situation might be a divide-by-zero. These situations aren't really error situations, and are usually caused by faulty input.
A situation like the previous kind, but one that can't be handled at the error site. For instance, if you have a function that takes a filename and parses the file with that name, it might not be able to open the file. In this case, it can't deal with the error. This is when exceptions shine. Rather than use the C approach (return an invalid value as a flag and set a global error variable to indicate the problem), the code can instead throw an exception. The calling code will then be able to deal with the exception - for instance to prompt the user for another filename.
A situation that Should Not Happen. This is when a class invariant is violated, or a function receives an invalid paramter or the like. This indicates a logic failure within the code. Depending on the level of failure, an exception may be appropriate, or forcing immediate termination may be preferable (as assert does). Generally, these situations indicate that something has broken somewhere in the code, and you effectively cannot trust anything else to be correct - there may be rampant memory corruption. Your ship is sinking, get off.
To paraphrase, exceptions are for when you have a problem you can deal with, but you can't deal with at the place you notice it. Problems you can't deal with should simply kill the program; problems you can deal with right away should simply be dealt with.

I read some of the answers here.
I'm still amazed on what all this confusion is about.
I strongly disagree with all this exceptions==spagetty code.
With confusion I mean, that there are people, which don't appreciate C++ exception handling.
I'm not certain how I learned about C++ exception handling -- but I understood the implications within minutes.
This was around 1996 and I was using the borland C++ compiler for OS/2.
I never had a problem to decide, when to use exceptions.
I usually wrap fallible do-undo actions into C++ classes.
Such do-undo actions include:
creating/destroying a system handle (for files, memory maps, WIN32 GUI handles, sockets, and so on)
setting/unsetting handlers
allocating/deallocating memory
claiming/releasing a mutex
incrementing/decrementing a reference count
showing/hiding a window
Than there are functional wrappers. To wrap system calls (which do not fall into the former category) into C++. E.g. read/write from/to a file.
If something fails, an exception will be thrown, which contains full information about the error.
Then there is catching/rethrowing exceptions to add more information to a failure.
Overall C++ exception handling leads to more clean code.
The amount of code is drasticly reduced.
Finally one can use a constructor to allocate fallible resources and still maintain a corruption free environment after such a failure.
One can chain such classes into complex classes.
Once a constructor of some member/base object is exectued, one can rely on that all other constructors of the same object (executed before) executed successfully.

Exceptions are a very unusual method of flow control compared to the traditional constructs (loops, ifs, functions, etc.) The normal control flow constructs (loops, ifs, function calls, etc.) can handle all the normal situations. If you find yourself reaching for an exception for a routine occurrence, then perhaps you need to consider how your code is structured.
But there are certain types of errors that cannot be handled easy with the normal constructs. Catastrophic failures (like resource allocation failure) can be detected at a low level but probably can't be handled there, so a simple if-statement is inadequate. These types of failures generally need to be handled at a much higher level (e.g., save the file, log the error, quit). Trying to report an error like this through traditional methods (like return values) is tedious and error-prone. Furthermore, it injects overhead into layers of mid-level APIs to handle this bizarre, unusual failure. The overhead distracts client of these APIs and requires them to worry about issues that are beyond their control. Exceptions provide a way to do non-local handling for big errors that's mostly invisible to all the layers between the detection of the problem and the handler for it.
If a client calls ParseInt with a string, and the string doesn't contain an integer, then the immediate caller probably cares about the error and knows what to do about it. So you'd design ParseInt to return a failure code for something like that.
On the other hand, if ParseInt fails because it couldn't allocate a buffer because memory is horribly fragmented, then the caller isn't going to know what to do about that. It would have to bubble this unusual error up and up to some layer that deals with these fundamental failures. That taxes everyone in between (because they have to accommodate the error passing mechanism in their own APIs). An exception makes it possible to skip over those layers (while still ensuring necessary clean-up happens).
When you're writing low-level code, it can be hard to decide when to use traditional methods and when to throw exceptions. The low-level code has to make the decision (throw or not). But it's the higher level code that truly knows what's expected and what's exceptional.

There's several reasons in C++.
First, it's frequently hard to see where exceptions are coming from (since they can be thrown from almost anything) and so the catch block is something of a COME FROM statement. It's worse than a GO TO, since in a GO TO you know where you're coming from (the statement, not some random function call) and where you're going (the label). They're basically a potentially resource-safe version of C's setjmp() and longjmp(), and nobody wants to use those.
Second, C++ doesn't have garbage collection built in, so C++ classes that own resources get rid of them in their destructors. Therefore, in C++ exception handling the system has to run all the destructors in scope. In languages with GC and no real constructors, like Java, throwing exceptions is a lot less burdensome.
Third, the C++ community, including Bjarne Stroustrup and the Standards Committee and various compiler writers, has been assuming that exceptions should be exceptional. In general, it's not worth going against language culture. The implementations are based on the assumption that exceptions will be rare. The better books treat exceptions as exceptional. Good source code uses few exceptions. Good C++ developers treat exceptions as exceptional. To go against that, you'd want a good reason, and all the reasons I see are on the side of keeping them exceptional.

This is a bad example of using exceptions as control flow:
int getTotalIncome(int incomeType) {
int totalIncome= 0;
try {
totalIncome= calculateIncomeAsTypeA();
} catch (IncorrectIncomeTypeException& e) {
totalIncome= calculateIncomeAsTypeB();
}
return totalIncome;
}
Which is very bad, but you should be writing:
int getTotalIncome(int incomeType) {
int totalIncome= 0;
if (incomeType == A) {
totalIncome= calculateIncomeAsTypeA();
} else if (incomeType == B) {
totalIncome= calculateIncomeAsTypeB();
}
return totalIncome;
}
This second example obviously needs some refactoring (like using the design pattern strategy), but illustrates well that exceptions are not meant for control flow.
Exceptions also have some performance penalties associated, but performance problems should follow the rule: "premature optimization is the root of all evil"

Maintainability: As mentioned by people above, throwing exceptions at a drop of a hat is akin to using gotos.
Interoperability: You can't interface C++ libraries with C/Python modules (atleast not easily) if you are using exceptions.
Performance degradation: RTTI is used to actually find the type of the exception which imposes additional overhead. Thus exceptions are not suitable for handling commonly occurring use cases(user entered int instead of string etc).

I would say that exceptions are a mechanism to get you out of current context (out of current stack frame in the simplest sense, but it's more than that) in a safe way. It's the closest thing structured programming got to a goto. To use exceptions in the way they were intended to be used, you have to have a situation when you can't continue what you're doing now, and you can't handle it at the point where you are now. So, for example, when user's password is wrong, you can continue by returning false. But if the UI subsystem reports that it can't even prompt the user, simply returning "login failed" would be wrong. The current level of code simply does not know what to do. So it uses an exception mechanism to delegate the responsibility to someone above who may know what to do.

One very practical reason is that when debugging a program I often flip on First Chance Exceptions (Debug -> Exceptions) to debug an application. If there are a lot of exceptions happening it's very difficult to find where something has gone "wrong".
Also, it leads to some anti-patterns like the infamous "catch throw" and obfuscates the real problems. For more information on that see a blog post I made on the subject.

I prefer to use exceptions as little as possible. Exceptions force the developer to handle some condition that may or may not be a real error. The definition of whether the exception in question is a fatal problem or a problem that must be handled immediately.
The counter argument to that is it just requires lazy people to type more in order to shoot themselves in their feet.
Google's coding policy says to never use exceptions, especially in C++. Your application either isn't prepared to handle exceptions or it is. If it isn't, then the exception will probably propagate it up until your application dies.
It's never fun to find out some library you have used throws exceptions and you were not prepared to handle them.

Legitimate case to throw an exception:
You try to open a file, it's not there, a FileNotFoundException is thrown;
Illegitimate case:
You want to do something only if a file doesn't exist, you try to open the file, and then add some code to the catch block.
I use exceptions when I want to break the flow of the application up to a certain point. This point is where the catch(...) for that exception is. For example, it's very common that we have to process a load of projects, and each project should be processed independently of the others. So the loop that process the projects has a try...catch block, and if some exception is thrown during the project processing, everything is rolled back for that project, the error is logged, and the next project is processed. Life goes on.
I think you should use exceptions for things like a file that doesn't exist, an expression that is invalid, and similar stuff. You should not use exceptions for range testing/ data type testing/ file existence/ whatever else if there's an easy/ cheap alternative to it. You should not use exceptions for range testing/ data type testing/ file existence/ whatever else if there's an easy/ cheap alternative to it because this sort of logic makes the code hard to understand:
RecordIterator<MyObject> ri = createRecordIterator();
try {
MyObject myobject = ri.next();
} catch(NoSuchElement exception) {
// Object doesn't exist, will create it
}
This would be better:
RecordIterator<MyObject> ri = createRecordIterator();
if (ri.hasNext()) {
// It exists!
MyObject myobject = ri.next();
} else {
// Object doesn't exist, will create it
}
COMMENT ADDED TO THE ANSWER:
Maybe my example wasn't very good - the ri.next() should not throw an exception in the second example, and if it does, there's something really exceptional and some other action should be taken somewhere else. When the example 1 is heavily used, developers will catch a generic exception instead of the specific one and assume that the exception is due to the error that they're expecting, but it can be due to something else. In the end, this leads to real exceptions being ignored as exceptions became part of the application flow, and not an exception to it.
The comments on this may add more than my answer itself.

Basically, exceptions are an unstructured and hard to understand form of flow control. This is necessary when dealing with error conditions that are not part of the normal program flow, to avoid having error handling logic clutter up the normal flow control of your code too much.
IMHO exceptions should be used when you want to provide a sane default in case the caller neglects to write error handling code, or if the error might best be handled further up the call stack than the immediate caller. The sane default is to exit the program with a reasonable diagnostic error message. The insane alternative is that the program limps along in an erroneous state and crashes or silently produces bad output at some later, harder to diagnose point. If the "error" is enough a normal part of program flow that the caller could not reasonably forget to check for it, then exceptions should not be used.

I think, "use it rarely" ist not the right sentence. I would prefer "throw only in exceptional situations".
Many have explained, why exceptions should not used in normal situations. Exceptions have their right for error handling and purely for error handling.
I will focus on an other point:
An other thing is the performance issue. Compilers struggled long to get them fast. I am not sure, how the exact state is now, but when you use exceptions for control flow, than you will get an other trouble: Your program will become slow!
The reason is, that exceptions are not only very mighty goto-statements, they also have to unwind the stack for all the frames they leave. Thus implicitely also the objects on stack have to be deconstructed and so on. So without be aware of it, one single throw of an exception will really get a whole bunch of mechanics be involved. The processor will have to do a mighty lot.
So you will end up, elegantly burning your processor without knowing.
So: use exceptions only in exceptional cases -- Meaning: When real errors occured!

The purpose of exceptions is to make software fault tolerant. However having to provide a response to every exception thrown by a function leads to suppression. Exceptions are just a formal structure forcing programmers to acknowledge that certain things can go wrong with a routine and that the client programmer needs to be aware of these conditions and cater for them as necessary.
To be honest, exceptions are a kludge added to programming languages to provide developers with some formal requirement that shifts the responsibility of handling error cases from the immediate developer to some future developer.
I believe that a good programming language does not support exceptions as we know them in C++ and Java. You should opt for programming languages that can provide alternative flow for all sorts of return values from functions. The programmer should be responsible for anticipating all forms of outputs of a routine and handle them in a seperate code file if I could have my way.

I use exceptions if:
an error occured that cannot be recovered from locally AND
if the error is not recovered from the program should terminate.
If the error can be recovered from (the user entered "apple" instead of a number) then recover (ask for the input again, change to default value, etc.).
If the error cannot be recovered from locally but the application can continue (the user tried to open a file but the file does not exist) then an error code is appropriate.
If the error cannot be recovered from locally and the application cannot continue without recovering (you are out of memory/disk space/etc.), then an exception is the right way to go.

Who said they should be used conservatively ? Just never use exceptions for flow control and thats it.
And who cares about the cost of exception when it already thrown ?

My two cents:
I like to use exceptions, because it allows me to program as if no errors will happen. So my code remains readable, not scattered with all kinds of error-handling. Of course, the error handling (exception handling) is moved to the end (the catch block) or is considered the responsability of the calling level.
A great example for me, is either file handling, or database handling. Presume everything is ok, and close your file at the end or if some exception occurs. Or rollback your transaction when an exception occurred.
The problem with exceptions, is that it quickly gets very verbose. While it was meant to allow your code to remain very readable, and just focus on the normal flow of things, but if used consistently almost every function call needs to be wrapped in a try/catch block, and it starts to defeat the purpose.
For a ParseInt as mentioned before, i like the idea of exceptions. Just return the value. If the parameter was not parseable, throw an exception. It makes your code cleaner on the one hand. At the calling level, you need to do something like
try
{
b = ParseInt(some_read_string);
}
catch (ParseIntException &e)
{
// use some default value instead
b = 0;
}
The code is clean. When i get ParseInt like this scattered all over, i make wrapper functions that handle the exceptions and return me default values. E.g.
int ParseIntWithDefault(String stringToConvert, int default_value=0)
{
int result = default_value;
try
{
result = ParseInt(stringToConvert);
}
catch (ParseIntException &e) {}
return result;
}
So to conclude: what i missed througout the discussion was the fact that exceptions allow me to make my code easier/more readable because i can ignore the error conditions more. Problems:
the exceptions still need to be handled somewhere. Extra problem: c++ does not have the syntax that allows it to specify which exceptions a function might throw (like java does). So the calling level is not aware which exceptions might need to be handled.
sometimes code can get very verbose, if every function needs to be wrapped in a try/catch block. But sometimes this still makes sense.
So that makes it hard to find a good balance sometimes.

I'm sorry but the answer is "they are called exceptions for a reason." That explanation is a "rule of thumb". You can't give a complete set of circumstances under which exceptions should or should not be used because what a fatal exception (English definition) is for one problem domain is normal operating procedure for a different problem domain. Rules of thumb are not designed to be followed blindly. Instead they are designed to guide your investigation of a solution. "They are called exceptions for a reason" tells you that you should determine ahead of time what is a normal error the caller can handle and what is an unusual circumstance the caller cannot handle without special coding (catch blocks).
Just about every rule of programming is really a guideline saying "Don't do this unless you have a really good reason": "Never use goto", "Avoid global variables", "Regular expressions pre-increment your number of problems by one", etc. Exceptions are no exception....