DIP 1029---Add throw as Function Attribute---Community Review Round 1

bachmeier no at spam.net
Tue Jan 14 17:01:42 UTC 2020

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 at 16:32:51 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 at 15:58:31 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> I disagree. That's how your language turns into C++. The tough 
>> part of language design is making decisions conditional on 
>> what the language as a whole looks like, and what it's going 
>> to be in ten years.
> I agree that one should think holistically when considering 
> smaller changes.  But one should also be clear about what 
> couplings really _need_ to exist, and which don't.
>> My opinion is that it's an ugly inconsistency to give only one 
>> attribute an inverse.
> OK.  That's essentially an aesthetic concern, though:

Is it a big deal? Maybe not, but it's strange to say "You can 
invert [random attribute] but no others." "Oh, why is that?" 
"Because that's all that was in the DIP." It's just sloppy and 
amateurish to design a language like that.

> No, you don't need to write up a DIP to counter a DIP, but 
> comprehensively introducing invertible attributes _will_ need a 
> DIP.  So if you (or anyone else) thinks that is needed or 
> valuable, it's worth putting that DIP together.

I don't even know if that's a good idea. All I'm asking for is a 
sensible argument in favor of adding an inverse of one and only 
one attribute. It makes absolutely no sense to me to have 
negation of nothrow but not nogc.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list