On Monday, 1 April 2013 at 12:12:56 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

I think OutOfMemory should not be restricted by nothrow, and I propose to solve it as described above.

More precisely: In principle, I think OutOfMemory *should* be restricted by nothrow, but it would break too much code, and be far too annoying, to be feasible. :)

Lars

Reply via email to