scope() statements and return

[monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 14:54:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 10/6/14, 7:24 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
>>
>> If your "catch" throws an exception, then the new exception 
>> simply
>> "squashes" replaces the old one:
>>
>> //----
>> catch (Exception e)
>> {
>>     thisMightThrow(); //Lose "e" here
>>     throw e;
>> }
>> //----
>
> That's code under library/user control, I'm talking about the 
> responsibility of the language. -- Andrei

Right. but if correct usage is so cumbersome no one does it 
right, then it is 's/the responsibility/a flaw/' of the language.

Are we advocating then that code under user control should 
systematically look like this?

catch (Exception e)
{
     try
     {
         thisMightThrow(); //Lose "e" here
     }
     catch(Exception ee)
     {
         findLast(e).next = ee; //because e.next might
     }
     throw e;
}

Honestly, a good middle ground is to ditch chaining, but allow 
multiple exceptions thrown at once. Subsequent Exceptions/Errors 
will just be lost (sorry), with the exception that an Error will 
override an Exception.

For the sake of argument, do you have any examples where a 
program has used chaining?