Am 10.11.2012 11:21, schrieb Marco Leise: > Am Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:28:40 +0100 > schrieb deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com>: > >> nothrow is already a keyword (which is really inconsistent). I'm not >> sure what it does buy us, and both safe and nothrow are good candidates >> for lib implementation rather than compiler support. > > That requires that the compiler exposes all sorts of > statistical data for every statement. E.g. to check if nothrow > is violated you have to find statements that throw something > and then check if there is a catch block around that, that > catches it. If a statement is a function call, you would > ask the compiler if that function throws. (In particular if it > is a templated function with deduced 'nothrow' and '@safe'). > And there you are at the point that you just duplicated the > compiler code in the library. >
Not duplicated, but moved - which results in a simpler compiler implementation, definitely a good thing. Of course those AST analytics/maccro functionality has to be added in return, but since this has a much broader scope and would make other features (string mixins) obsolete, even that is not quite clear in terms of weight as a counter argument. Anyway, I surely wouldn't expect this to happen anytime soon, but keeping this path open seems like a wise decision - it's a great opportunity to remove/not add features from/to the language without trading functinality or even syntax.
