I don't believe I'm arguing in bad faith. Of course I think this would be wildly inappropriate for C2x, but I am still genuinely curious about this which is why

I don't believe I'm arguing in bad faith. Of course I think this would be wildly inappropriate for C2x, but I am still genuinely curious about this which is why I spent so much time reading it and writing that post. I do actually want to know the answers to my questions. Stack unwinding is one of the largest, most complicated to implement, and most controversial features of C++. Google, a company with billions of lines of C++, famously disables exception handling in most or all of their code [1]. Not only do many popular C++ projects disable exceptions, but even C++ compilers themselves disable exceptions in their own implementation [2]! C became popular in large part because of its simplicity of implementation. Some of these projects historically disabled C++ exceptions because they were slow and bloated, a result of the difficulty of implementing them efficiently. Now that they're fast and less bloated, these projects still can't turn them on because code that relies on stack unwinding is incompatible with code that does not. This proposal just repeats all of the same problems as C++. It is extremely surprising that such a large group of people would propose such a radical feature addition to C, especially one that is so complicated to implement and that effectively makes code that uses it totally incompatible with old code that doesn't. This is interesting when viewed as a feature of a new language based on C, but the idea of adding this to C is frankly absurd. [1]: https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Exceptions https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Exceptions [2]: https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#do-not-use-rtti-or-exceptions https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#do-not-use-rtti-o...