Exception Hierarchy [WAS: Re: Top 5]

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:07:12 +0400, Sean Kelly 
>> <sean at invisibleduck.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>>  I agree there should be a distinction between recoverable 
>>>> exceptions (normal exceptions) and nonrecoverable exceptions 
>>>> (contract failures?). I agree that "Exception" should be the name 
>>>> for normal exceptions. The others could be named "Error" or "Failure".
>>>> If we want the ability to catch these two separately, I don't see 
>>>> any other way other than having a third, top-level class, ie, a 
>>>> "Throwable", from which Exception and Error/Failure derive from.
>>>
>>> This is exactly the design that was decided upon.
>>
>> Will we still be able to throw Object? Is Throwable an interface or a 
>> class?
> 
> Throwable is a class, and contains all the stuff that Exception once 
> contained: message, file, line, a "next" reference, and trace info.  And 
> it sounds like Walter may require that all thrown objects in D be a 
> descendant of Throwable, but that won't happen immediately.

I suggested Srowable instead of Throwable, but nobody liked it. What 
were they sinking about???

Andrei