D 1.076 Alpha for Windows 64 bits, works with VS 2010

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-10-01 22:00, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> But, what you said about Ruby is an interesting idea. Ie, that throwing
> a string is really just sugar for throwing a normal exception. I didn't
> know that about Ruby. It would be kinda neat if we could do:
>
> 	throw "Shit happened";
>
> And instead of actually throwing a string, it was just sugar for:
>
> 	throw new Exception("Shit happened");
>
> That'd be pretty cool.

Yeah, I wouldn't want this to become a regular String at the catch site, 
that would be pretty bad.

> On a related, but goofier, note:
> http://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/stupid-coder-tricks-debugging-exception-handlers

That's interesting. But that's also just like creating a function 
"error" which throws an exception. Which I end up doing sometimes.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg