Making Errors errors

[Max Haughton]

On Friday, 29 January 2021 at 06:03:08 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 January 2021 at 17:59:41 UTC, Max Haughton 
> wrote:
>> It has been discussed in a different thread (Making throwing 
>> an error an instant failure, catching Error etc.)
>>
>> I am starting to put together a patch to try out this 
>> behaviour, what do we actually want it to do - should it call 
>> a user specified handler, druntime, c etc.?
>>
>> The rationale makes perfect sense (Errors should indicate 
>> something has gone wrong, the program is in an invalid state - 
>> by definition you cannot recover), but the exact behaviour 
>> must be specified.
>
> What would be the effect of this change on the unit test 
> runners we have (d-unit, silly, unit-threaded)?
> This might break their functionality, as they might catch 
> Errors (unit tests calling assert).
>
> Kind regards
> Andre

It would need to be a flag, I doubt this will ever be the default 
- however consider that Phobos at least already doesn't throw 
asserterrors if you test with release - if we wanted it as a 
option to be widely used it would just be a part of the test 
suite like any other feature.