http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3020
--- Comment #7 from Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> 2010-10-29 05:30:34 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Out of memory errors should be allowed inside nothrow. Good. I think so too. That will make nothrow much more useful. In the existing compiler, they are disallowed. ( void foo() nothrow { auto x = new int; } won't compile). I just added error messages to specify why it was being disallowed. It sounds as though the check for nothrow violations should be separated from the code which determines if a statement can throw. That is, for 'new' and for asm, we assume that it can throw. But, if it's in a nothrow function, we trust the programmer. Then, what happens if an out of memory condition happens in a nothrow function? Is the program simply terminated? > > 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? Dunno. It's certainly bad style. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------