The Right Approach to Exceptions

[deadalnix]

Le 20/02/2012 21:57, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
> On 2/20/12 1:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Monday, February 20, 2012 20:42:28 deadalnix wrote:
>>> Le 20/02/2012 20:27, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
>>>> On Monday, February 20, 2012 11:15:08 H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>>> That's why I proposed to use runtime reflection to scan the exception
>>>>> object for applicable fields. Then you get the best of both worlds:
>>>>> the
>>>>> message formatter doesn't need to know what the fields are, and you
>>>>> get
>>>>> full compile-time type checking for catching code that directly
>>>>> accesses
>>>>> the fields.
>>>>
>>>> That would certainly be better.
>>>>
>>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>>
>>> This is way better than Variant[string], but unimplemented ATM.
>>
>> Yes, but you can use compile-time constructs to generate it. And as you
>> pointed out in another post, tupleof should do the trick. Regardless, the
>> point is that using reflection of some kind is a much better solution
>> than
>> using variant.
>
> Agreed. Ideally adding a sort of mixin to any class would enable it for
> advanced run-time information:
>
> class DRoxException : Exception
> {
> mixin(enableRTTI);
> ... normal implementation ...
> }
>
>
> Andrei
>
>

Why not using std.rtti and generate run time reflection info from 
compile time reflexion capability ?

This would enable that feature without writing it the language, so it 
would prevent to bloat the binary when size matter and reflexion isn't 
needed.