DMD 1.027 and 2.011 releases

[Graham St Jack]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:47:00 +0000, Sean Kelly wrote:

> == Quote from Graham St Jack (Graham.StJack at internode.on.net)'s article
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:55:17 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>> > Graham St Jack wrote:
>> >> It will be a good trick if you can pull it off. I don't see how it
>> >> can be done without examining the source code of all the called
>> >> functions, leaving us back where we started with throw specs.
>> >>
>> >> The C++ approach of a runtime check isn't perfect, but at least it
>> >> can be done, and provides a more definite form of documentation than
>> >> comments.
>> >
>> > Are you sure it does a runtime check for nothrow?
>> g++ certainly does runtime checking. I'm sure it does no static
>> checking at all.
>> We use the throw() and throw(list-of-exceptions) specs all the time in
>> our C++ code, relying on the runtime checking to tell us if we get it
>> wrong. This is quite horrible compared to static checking, but it is a
>> lot better than nothing, because we find out what exception was thrown
>> and which throw-spec was violated.
>> The vast majority of functions in our C++ code use an empty throw-spec,
>> so if D had nothrow with some static checking plus a runtime check, I
>> would be better off than I am now with C++. Of course I would be even
>> better off if the static checking was complete, but that seems to be
>> too tricky.
> 
> The nice thing about offering nothrow only is that it implicitly marks
> any unlabeled routine as one that may throw an exception.  The problem
> in C++ with explicit exception specs is those unlabeled routines--they
> can throw anything but they're also callable from nothrow routines
> because they might not actually throw anything.  It's a mess.
> 
> 
> Sean

Agreed.