pu$�le

[strtr]

== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisprog at gmail.com)'s article
> On Sunday 18 July 2010 19:14:11 strtr wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether you missed my point or are simple thinking out loud
> > about unreachable code being a warning.
> > My point was that the unreachable warning was wrong as there is no
> > unreachable code.
> Except that there _is_. You just can't see it. scope(X) creates a try-catch
> block. So,
> scope(exit) whatever;
> /* code */
> becomes
> try
> {
> */ code */
> }
> finally
> {
>     whatever;
> }
> scope(success) whatever;
> /* code */
> becomes
> /* code */
> whatever;
> scope(failure) whatever;
> /* code */
> becomes
> try
> {
> /* code */
> }
> catch(Exception e)
> {
>     whatever;
>     throw e;
> }
> So, something like
> scope(failure) continue;
> /* code */
> becomes
> try
> {
>     /* code */
> }
> catch(Exception e)
> {
>     continue;
>     throw e;
> }
> The throw statement is then unreachable. So, the warning is correct. The problem
> is that it's not clear. Ideally, you would have a warning which specifically
> mentions the fact that you can't do that sort of thing in a scope statement.
> Unless the programmer is thinking about what exactly scope() becomes, the
> unreachable statement warning will be confusing. So, that's a problem. It is,
> however, correct. It probably merits its own bug report.
> - Jonathan M Davis

Thanks for the explanation!
But what you are talking about is implementation, nowhere in the spec does it say
anything like this (or did I just miss it :).
I could find only this about scope(failure):
"scope(failure) executes NonEmptyOrScopeBlockStatement  when the scope exits due
to exception unwinding."
So at the very least it is a documentation bug:
It should say something about catching the exception and then re-throwing it, or
explain that scope guards are sugar for re-throwing try statements