Disallow catch without parameter ("LastCatch")

[Christopher Wright]

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:47 +0300, grauzone <none at example.net> wrote:
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>>> Hello grauzone,
>>>
>>>> PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
>>>> "Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for runtime errors, Exception
>>>> for normal exceptions.) Isn't it dangerous to execute arbitrary user
>>>> code in presence of what is basically an internal error?
>>>>
>>>  If a thrown Error doesn't run finally blocks you will have a very 
>>> hard time arguing for catch working and once those don't happen it 
>>> might as well kill -9 the process so why even have it in the first 
>>> place?
>>
>> You still can use a "catch (Throwable t)" to catch all kinds of 
>> errors. I just think that finally (and scope(exit)) should be designed 
>> with high level code in mind. Code that allocates heap memory in a 
>> finally block is already broken (what if an out of memory error was 
>> thrown?).
> 
> I've seen code that has throws new OutOfMemoryException(__FILE__, 
> __LINE__); when malloc (or other allocation mechanism) has failed, and 
> it always make me smile.

Maybe the GC should reserve a small amount of space (~1KB) for its 
exceptions, when memory is tight.