Function with try/catch and no return statement

[Stewart Gordon]

retard wrote:
<snip>
> The difference is, in this case the generic foo doesn't need to be 
> analyzed before it has been instantiated. There is no foo(string code) 
> instances in the final executable, only the concrete instantiations. The 
> analysis could be done when foo!(something) is encountered in the code.

It already is.  It's part of how templates work: templates aren't 
semantically analysed, only instances of them are.

The problem lies in how the requirement for return statements is 
specified, as I've explained in my reply to Michel.

Stewart.