DIP 1029---Add throw as Function Attribute---Community Review Round 1
arine123445128843 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 05:26:43 UTC 2020
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 at 20:42:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/14/2020 7:18 AM, Arine wrote:
>> Otherwise this shouldn't be it's own DIP. If the intention is
>> this is only required for another DIP, this should just be
>> included in that DIP.
> It does make sense on its own.
It doesn't. Not with what's written in the DIP. If you don't care
to elaborate I guess that's the end of that discussion.
> Furthermore, I don't want to distract the coming discussion on
> "nothrow as default" with all the debate about throw vs throws
> vs @throw, etc.
So talking about something that's part of the DIP is distracting
from the DIP? Why are you trying to control the narrative that
takes place in a DIP? You shouldn't be splitting up DIPs into
non-nonsensical pieces just so you can tell people to not discuss
certain aspects that relate to the current DIP because they are
also part of another DIP.
> BTW, anyone wanting to discuss the merits of "nothrow as
> default" please use the "nothrow by default" thread started by
> Steven Schveighoffer on Jan 4.
I'd say as long as it mentions making nothrow the default in the
DIP, this is fair to discuss here. It is part of this DIP after
More information about the Digitalmars-d