catch without block/scope brackets

[Jakob]

Jarrett Billingsley schrieb:
> "Jakob" <a at b.com> wrote in message news:fbjmcu$68k$2 at digitalmars.com...
>> IMHO, the compiler should parse the second piece of code in the same 
>> manner as the first piece, since there are (as in the first example) no 
>> brackets after the catch keyword defining an object to catch. Right?
>>
> 
> I've thought about this as well, and I think it's because allowing a 
> statement without braces there would introduce an ambiguity:
> 
> try
>     foo();
> catch
>     (bar).baz();
> 
> Parenthesized expressions are allowed to come at the beginning of 
> expressions, and therefore at the beginning of statements.  So the compiler 
> would parse the catch block in this case as "catch(bar", thinking that "bar" 
> is the type of a catch specialization, and then expect an identifier after 
> "bar".

Well, that makes sense.

But i also tried

catch()
	foo();

and it errored, even though this wouldn't be ambigous

> 
> Thankfully there's no ambiguity when you _do_ specify an exception 
> specialization:
> 
> try
>     foo();
> catch(Object ex)
>     fwritefln(stderr, "An error happened. %s", ex.toString()); 
> 
> 

Yeah, but i didn't use the exception-object and thought, it's stupid to declare a variable and then not use it.