FeedbackThread: DIP 1038-- at nodiscard--Community Review Round 1
Paul Backus
snarwin at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 14:58:56 UTC 2020
On Thursday, 10 December 2020 at 09:40:08 UTC, Robert burner
Schadek wrote:
> The "Rationale -> Error handling without exceptions sections
> argument" is wrong.
>
[...]
>
> The only "correct" way to get to any percentage, is to try to
> use all packages from code that is nothrow and/or @nogc.
I am well aware that these numbers are not perfectly accurate.
The point of using them is only to get a rough approximation of
the proportion of D code that could benefit from an alternative
to exceptions. Unless there is a reason to think they are
strongly *biased* (i.e., there are many more false positives than
false negatives), it does not really matter to the DIP's argument
if they are off by a few percent one way or the other.
As you point out, the amount of work required to get more
accurate data is prohibitive, so the actual choice is between
"rough, approximate numbers" and "no numbers at all." I think the
DIP is stronger with the numbers than without them, even
accounting for their shortcomings, but I am happy to hear
arguments to the contrary.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list