On 06/02/2017 12:35 AM, Vasileios Anagnostopoulos wrote:
> On Friday, 2 June 2017 at 07:33:05 UTC, Vasileios Anagnostopoulos wrote:
>> But still I believe that @nothrow should be mandatory if there is no
>> possibility for a function to throw something. I understand that in
>> the DLL/LIB level this is not possible. However, at least in the .di
>> level it should be there.
>>
>> And if you want my two cents, after reading a lot I came to the
>> "personal" conclusion that Exception objects are wrong. For me it is
>> enough to have something like
> Or simply
>
> void A() {
> raise;
> }
>
> void B() nothrow {
> }
>
>
> void D () nothrow { //the compiler inferred from body that D cannever
throw
>
> try {
> A();
> } else {
> B();
> }
>
> }
If I understand you correctly, you want the compiler to force the
programmer to be explicit about @nothrow. That's an interesting idea...
I don't have strong opinions on the matter.
To add to this discussion, there is the "Checked vs unchecked
exceptions" thread currently active on the general newsgroup:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/hxhjcchsulqejwxyw...@forum.dlang.org
Ali
