http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3020
Walter Bright <bugzi...@digitalmars.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #5 from Walter Bright <bugzi...@digitalmars.com> 2010-10-29 03:21:11 PDT --- Out of memory errors should be allowed inside nothrow. Also, I suspect it would be good to disallow: try { ... } catch (Exception e) { /* nothing here */ } where all exceptions are swallowed and ignored. This kind of thing happens in Java to work around exception specifications, but I don't see a need for it here. Of course, there would still be ways to swallow & ignore (just put in a call to a do-nothing function), but such shouldn't be easy. What do you think? --- Comment #6 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> 2010-10-29 03:37:35 PDT --- There are plenty of cases where you know that a function will never throw but it's not nothrow (perhaps because it can throw in other circumstances), and you're forced to catch the Exception anyway (probably because you're in a nothrow function). Personally, I use assert(0) for such cases. As long as disallowing empty catch blocks is really for _empty_ catch blocks (or catch blocks with only a comment), I don't mind. But there are definitely cases where you want to eat an exception or where there should never be one but you have to have a try-catch anyway. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------