static try?

[dennis luehring]

Am 31.10.2011 02:21, schrieb Mehrdad:
> I've written this piece of code a fair number of times:
>
>        static if (is(typeof(foo()))) { foo(); }
>        else { bar(); }
>
> When the expression inside the condition (i.e. the call to foo()) gets
> complicated, you get lots of code duplication and things become harder
> to read.
>
> So I'm thinking, why not just introduce a 'static try'?
>
> Something like:
>
>       static try
>       {
>           foo();
>       }
>       catch  // (string ex)  // perhaps let them know what the error is?
>       {
>           bar();
>       }
>
> It's a clean and immensely readable improvement IMO, and it doesn't
> introduce any new keywords or any breaking changes to anything.
>
> How's the idea?

1. sorry but look like static exception based flow control - because of 
the "try/catch" - and that is evil

2.

static try
{
}

introduces an compiletime scope - what would the following code mean?

static try
{
   int x = 10;
   foo();
   int y = 20;
}
catch
{
   bar();
}