On Sunday, October 28, 2012 13:08:50 Jacob Carlborg wrote: > What about allowing catch-statements without a try-statement, something > like this: > > void foo () > { > // some code ... > > catch (Exception e) > { > > } > } > > This would be the same as the whole function would be wrapped in a > try-statement. It's a quite handy feature that's available in Ruby.
So, you save one set of braces? I don't see how that really buys you much. - Jonathan M Davis