On 11 July 2014 13:45, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 7/10/2014 7:31 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> So, we allow assert() in nothrow functions, the argument is that >> assert is non-recoverable, so it's distinct from user exceptions. >> >> I have this in my 'nothrow @nogc' function: >> assert(false, "Message " ~ details); >> >> It complains "Error: cannot use operator ~ in @nogc function" >> >> I think it should be allowed to invoke the GC for formatting error >> messages inside of assert statements, just the same as assert() is >> allowed inside of nothrow functions. >> >> Thoughts? >> > > I've thought of allowing "throw new ...", and yours would be in addition to > that, in @nogc functions, but was waiting to see how this would play out a > bit first.
I should add, I'm not sure I see that my case should be 'in addition'. I think my case should precede since I don't think it's objectionable, but I'm really unsure I would get on board with 'throw new ...' in @nogc functions. It seems to defeat the purpose to me...? Why would you want to allow throwing 'new' exceptions?
