The Right Approach to Exceptions
SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Mon Feb 20 09:47:36 PST 2012
On 2/20/12 11:32 AM, foobar wrote:
> On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 17:12:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/20/12 11:08 AM, Mafi wrote:
>>> If it's supposed to be simple factorization, then you should replace
>>> "throw r" with "return r". Then the name of that function doesn't make
>>> much sense anymore. But then you can better search for throw in user
>>> code and the stack traces aren't obfuscated anymore.
>>> throw createEx!AcmeException("....");
>> I think that's a great idea, thanks.
> I fail to see the point in this. Why is the above better than
> throw AcmeException("....");
> If you want to avoid boilerplate code in the definition of
> AcmeException, this can be better accomplished with a mixin.
The advantage is that e.g. the compiler can see that flow ends at throw.
Other languages have a "none" type that function may return to signal
they never end.
More information about the Digitalmars-d