DIP65: Fixing Exception Handling Syntax

[safety0ff via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 23:14:49 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
>
> If I'm understanding this correctly, you want to deprecate the 
> (somewhat popular) nameless exception syntax so that we can 
> keep the "should be removed with prejudice" catch-everything 
> syntax?

Is this the bottom line? Is DIP65 formally rejected? ping...