The Right Approach to Exceptions

foobar foo at
Mon Feb 20 11:04:28 PST 2012

On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 17:47:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> 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.
>>> Andrei
>> 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.
> Andrei

I meant -
what's the benefit of:
throw createEx!AcmeException("....");
throw AcmeException("....");

As far as I can see, the former has no benefits over the simpler 
latter option.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list