DIP65: Fixing Exception Handling Syntax

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/16/2014 4:04 PM, safety0ff wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 23:14:49 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
>>
>> If I'm understanding this correctly, you want to deprecate the (somewhat
>> popular) nameless exception syntax so that we can keep the "should be removed
>> with prejudice" catch-everything syntax?
>
> Is this the bottom line? Is DIP65 formally rejected? ping...

Unless a convincing counter argument emerges, yes.