ctrl+c and destructors

[Walter Bright]

On 10/2/2013 10:10 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> If there's one notion I'd like to terminate with prejudice, it's the notion
>> that a running program can "recover" from bugs in itself.
>
> I worked on a system whose design was specifically built around trapping and
> recovering from segfaults (great design, and sadly, patented).  Things like
> this are one of the primary reasons to use a systems programming language.
> So while I agree in the general sense, I don't think it's appropriate for the
> language to make a hard and fast assertion here.  I think we should choose a
> reasonable, safe default, but make it overridable.  That's pretty much the
> design philosophy of Druntime.

D being a systems programming language, you can pursue whatever design you like 
with it, including bad designs :-)

Although I haven't seen the system you describe, I'm very skeptical that it 
found the solution to the problem of a program successfully continuing after it 
has crashed due to program bugs. I remain firmly convinced that that is an 
utterly wrong and doomed approach to the problem of reliability.