Conclusions of the exception discussion

deadalnix deadalnix at
Sat Feb 25 03:29:18 PST 2012

Le 25/02/2012 07:26, Daniel Murphy a écrit :
> "Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisProg at>  wrote in message
> news:mailman.93.1330149312.24984.digitalmars-d at
>> However, regardless of which we choose, someone is going to have to take
>> the
>> time to implement it, since odds are that Walter isn't going to do it. So,
>> whether we end up with a feature along these lines is highly dependent on
>> whether anyone is willing to take the time to implement it and get it
>> accepted
>> by Walter.
> Waaaay ahead of you here.
> It's currently 'catch(auto e : E1, E2, E3)' but changing the syntax is
> trivial if everyone decides they want it.

I do think this approach have a flaw. If we go in that direction, then 
it push devs to create new Exception type just to catch them, because 
this is the only way we have.

If I understand properly your pull request, the compiler will be 
duplicating catch block ? If it is the case, would it be possible to use 
static if to use type specific stuff of E1, E2 or E3, depending on which 
one we are facing ?

BTW, great job, it is definitively a nice addition to have.

jmdavis > good job to synthetize all this. I think you get the most 
importants points of the talk.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list