[OT] OT: Null checks.

[Timon Gehr]

On 5/4/25 19:34, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/4/2025 8:43 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> The point is that Walter seems to be moving in the direction of 
>> creating even more cases where I would not be able to get any 
>> information back from normie Windows users,
> 
> I replied to you already: "I had no idea anyone was using it for that 
> purpose. I guess I can't change that :-)"
> 
> Besides, you could still use `try ... catch (Error e)` instead of 
> `scope(failure)`. After all, the `scope` construct literally is just 
> rewritten as try...catch or try...finally.
> ...

My understanding is all of those features are under constant threat of 
being broken for "Error" and not guaranteed to work in the first place.

> 
>> while still not acknowledging that segfaults are useless and 
>> unworkable in practically relevant cases.
> 
> Worst case, you can write a signal handler for any of the signals that 
> can be generated (not just null pointer signals), and have the handler 
> write all it can to a file that can be emailed to you.
> 
> You can also hook atexit() as maybe your program is exiting that way.

Well, yes. As I said, I can probably figure it out at some point. It's 
just a lot more work than necessary in some other languages for 
comparable situations.