just more fine-grained control ... but either way. having an escape away from nogc would be needed.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:56 AM, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Sunday, 10 January 2016 at 09:17:20 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote: > >> this would make error handling trivial and solve issues such as this: >> >> FORUM:formatted assert error messages inside nogc functions >> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CANri+EyNyrhMWGCSqZHx_vXDJFSrwhOrV=j2katz6t9-upt...@mail.gmail.com >> >> usage: >> >> during development: >> dmd -debug -ignore_nogc other_flags foo.d >> during release: >> dmd other_flags foo.d >> >> @nogc >> void test(int a){ >> >> version(ignore_nogc) >> assert(a==1, text("a = ", a)); >> else >> assert(a==1, "a = ?"); >> >> } >> > > is there a valid reason that debug shouldn't just ignore @nogc? > this is also an issue with contracts iirc >
