Possibility of adopting Rust's Error Handling?

[Petar]

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 21:35:00 UTC, user1234 wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 21:21:04 UTC, mee6 wrote:
>> Rust's error handling is pretty good, I think they've proved 
>> the use of Result!(T, E). I was just always getting 
>> informative messages from the get go. I think there's a @nogc 
>> exception DIP in the works but I think this way of handling 
>> errors is better.
>>
>> I won't go too much into detail of rust as this website does a 
>> good job of going over it.
>>
>> https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch09-00-error-handling.html
>>
>> Anyways this could be adopted instead of trying to get @nogc 
>> exceptions working. Rust uses exceptions but only for panic!() 
>> Which terminates the application. All it does is rewind the 
>> stack to see all the function calls for debugging pretty much.
>>
>> I also think it works with chaining functions as that's what 
>> Rust does a lot too. They have a `?` operator that does 
>> basically this boiler plate code.
>>
>> ```d
>> auto result = expr;
>> if (result.isErr())
>>     return result;
>> ```
>>
>> D could implement this fairly easily and without much 
>> intrusion, but it would add a lot of value to be able to do 
>> something like:
>>
>> ```rust
>> auto value = chain()?.funcs()?;
>> ```
>
> yikes, I'd prefer if D could use `?` for [safe navigation].
>
>> While being @nogc and without using exceptions. Other than for 
>> panics.
>
> [safe navigation]: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_navigation_operator

Why not for both? `.?` and `??` could be overloadable operators 
like `opDot`, which when applied to pointers and class references 
will behave like they do in other languages, while structs could 
overload them to implement behavior like Rust's `Result` type.