Conclusions of the exception discussion

deadalnix deadalnix at
Sat Feb 25 09:56:40 PST 2012

Le 25/02/2012 14:11, Daniel Murphy a écrit :
> "deadalnix"<deadalnix at>  wrote in message
> news:jiagbg$liu$1 at
>> Le 25/02/2012 07:26, Daniel Murphy a �crit :
>> 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.
> This is a different issue to whether or not we have the syntax to catch
> multiple exceptions with a single catch block.
>> 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 ?
> No, it just creates stub catch blocks that jump to the real one.
> Duplicating the blocks would have weird effects on things like static
> variables.  I think that kind of code duplication is better done with
> something that works like mixing in case statements.
> catch(auto e : E1, E2) { body; }
> ->
> catch(E1 e)
> {
>    goto catchE2;
> }
> catch(E2 e)
> {
> catchE2:
>    body;
> }

Wow, it didn't got that. This is nice, but then, the Exception type is 
completely lost.

It does means that we are not interested in the Exception type, but of 
its presence, and so, maybe we just have created useless Exception types 
and this has to be fixed instead of the language ?

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list