Exception/Error division in D

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-05-31 08:39, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> No. I haven't been arguing that. It's not particularly safe to catch Errors,
> but they're catchable on purpose. It's catching and _handling_ an Error that's
> generally a bad idea - that and continuing to execute after catching the Error
> rather than letting the program terminate. It may be appropriate in very rare
> examples where the programmer knows what they're doing, but in general,
> catching them to do much beyond print out additional information or maybe do
> some absolutely critical cleanup is a bad idea.
>
> The real question is whether any cleanup should be attempted on Error (i.e.
> destructors, scope statements, and finally blocks). Running that code is risky
> when an Error occurs, because the program is in an invalid state. It's
> possible that running it could actually do damage of some variety, depending
> on the state of the program and what the cleanup does. But skipping all of
> that cleanup can be a problem too, since that cleanup generally needs to be
> done. Depending on what the Error was, the cleanup may actually work and
> therefore leave the program in a less invalid state. So, it's a question of
> whether attempting cleanup in an invalid state or skipping cleanup in an
> invalid state is riskier. Per Walter, there's no guarantee that that cleanup
> will occur, but with the current implementation it almost always does.

Ok, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you or confused you with someone else.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg