> I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being pedantic about this point but it's a huge issue of contention for those of us who used C++ to squeeze every ounce of perf

> I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being pedantic about this point but it's a huge issue of contention for those of us who used C++ to squeeze every ounce of performance out of a platform. You're being pedantic about something I'm not saying. I 100% agree with what you're saying in that comment, but that isn't what this thread is about. It has now become clear that your "big gripe" with exceptions is not the inability to throw them out of destructors (which is what causes the problem with scope(exit)), but all the other problems with them. As my previous comment said, there's lots of reasons why Rust's approach is better (I'm intimately familiar with Rust, and also work on a large C++ codebase... with exceptions disabled ;) ), but that's not what we're talking about here. > For those of us who ship codebases with exceptions disabled by default it definitely is a problem No, you're misreading me again: it isn't a new problem. As in, the problems with current_exception() are just the normal problems with exceptions, they aren't something specific to that function. If exceptions are okay (which they're often not; yes, I know, I get that, but that's not the point here), then using current_exception to return errors from destructors is fine. My point is Rust and C++ both handle returning errors from destructors equally well/badly. (Your point is you, in general, prefer Rust's error handling to C++ exceptions, which is a different point.)