proposed @noreturn attribute

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/9/17 7:26 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 7/9/17 7:07 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> On Sunday, 9 July 2017 at 10:59:43 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 9 July 2017 at 10:51:50 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 9 July 2017 at 10:31:47 UTC, Mr.D wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 8 July 2017 at 10:15:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone a better idea?
>>>>>
>>>>> What about
>>>>>
>>>>> scope(exit) assert(0);
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> void func()
>>>> out { assert(0); }
>>>> body
>>>> {
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Yes, this!
>>>
>> That certainly signals intention, but I still think that an attribute 
>> is a whole lot simpler than compiler voodoo like this or the "None" 
>> discussed earlier.
> 
> This whole proposal is compiler voodoo :)
> 
> Unlike a currently undefined attribute, assert(0) in the out contract 
> currently is effective to mean no return. It also guarantees that if 
> there is a return statement somewhere, it still doesn't return.
> 
> Also, since the out contract is part of the signature, it will still be 
> present in the case of separate compilation.
> 
> The one disadvantage, is that -release removes contracts. So in this 
> particular case, the out contract should remain.
> 
> Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but @disable(return) could work 
> as something that doesn't add any new attributes.

I wonder why there's so much attraction to exotic approaches when 
encoding "no return" with types has so much established theory and 
practice with it. -- Andrei