Plan for Exceptions and @nogc?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 at 08:13:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> It is a horrible solution developed for the Itanium VLIW 
> architecture which is very sensitive to branching. IRRC it 
> basically works by looking at the return address on the stack, 
> then picking up stack frame information in a global table to 
> unwind. It is language agnostic and the language provides a 
> "personality function" to unwind correctly in a language 
> dependent manner...
>

Which is true, but would be as true without the horrible mention. 
Adjective do not constitute arguments.

> I agree that a fast unwind with stack pointer reset or multiple 
> return paths would be much better, but you need to rewrite the 
> backend to support it. That's the main issue... the "fast path" 
> argument is just a sorry excuse that literally means that 
> exceptions are avoided for common failures in C++. As a result 
> you get APIs that are nonuniform.

What you agree with is irrelevant if it do not come backed by 
facts.

You can qualify thing as "horrible", "sorry excuses" and so on, 
the only thing it is telling us is that you seems incapable of 
forming a compelling argument and rely on smear instead.