DMD 1.027 and 2.011 releases

[Georg Wrede]

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?
> 
>> If the static checks aren't done well enough and runtime checks aren't 
>> done at all, I would prefer to rely on comments.

IMHO, it would behoove the compiler to keep track of possible/potential 
exceptions a function can throw. (Just as well as (again, IMHO) it would 
behoove the compiler to keep track of functions that /potentially/ have 
side effects.)

The workload for doing either defines a pattern, and doing the other is 
simply a repetition of the pattern. Therefore, doing both is not much 
more work than doing only one of these.

In the optimal future, entering a function would give you information 
(not necessarily runtime, but definitely info when browsing the docs) on 
whether it potentially generates an exception/changes data. A year after 
this info is standard in the docs, several new ideas about Functional 
Programming will emerge, in D. (Ermmmm, new to D, anyway.)

-----

Keeping track of these two things may be considered superfluous 
drudgery, but the potential benefits well outweigh the invested effort.