runtime hook for Crash on Error

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 18:11:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 19:22:13 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 09:38:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:13:39 Lars T. Kyllingstad 
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Friday, 1 June 2012 at 12:29:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
>> >> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:48:27 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
>> >> > 
>> >> > <dmitry.olsh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> I don't agree that OutOfMemory is critical:
>> >> >> --> make it an exception ?
>> >> > 
>> >> > No. What we need is a non-throwing version of malloc that
>> >> > returns NULL. (throwing version can wrap this). If you 
>> >> > want
>> >> > to throw an exception, then throw it there (or use 
>> >> > enforce).
>> >> 
>> >> With some sugar:
>> >> auto a = nothrow new Foo; // Returns null on OOM
>> >> 
>> >> Then, ordinary new can be disallowed in nothrow code.
>> > 
>> > But then instead of getting a nice, clear, OutOfMemoryError,
>> > you get a
>> > segfault - and that's assuming that it gets dereferenced
>> > anywhere near where
>> > it's allocated. [...]
>> 
>> I agree; it would make nothrow an "advanced feature", which 
>> kind
>> of sucks.
>
> Which makes the suggestion DOA IMHO.

I'm not so sure it's worse than the current situation.

   Newbie: "This nothrow thing looks kinda cool.  So, if I use it, 
I can be sure nothing gets thrown from this function, right?"

   Community: "Right.  Unless you run out of memory, or an 
assertion fails, or something like that.  Then you get an Error, 
and nothrow doesn't prevent those."

   Newbie: "Ok, I guess that makes sense.  Luckily, it looks like 
Error is just another kind of exception, so at least I know that 
all my destructors are run and my program terminates gracefully.  
Right?"

   Community: "Yeah, about that..."