On Monday, 5 September 2016 at 18:27:44 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
Can you point out how this is different from (and better than)
try { do_a_thing(); depends_on_success_of_thing(); }
catch (...) { ... }
finally { ... }
?
On Monday, 5 September 2016 at 18:27:52 UTC, arturg wrote:
hm, isn't this similar/same as the python version?
try{
doSomething();
scope(success) "if no Exception thrown".writeln;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
...
}
In this case, the catch block will catch both errors from
do_a_thing and depends_on_success_of_thing. The places where this
sort of pattern is most useful are where you don't want to handle
errors in depends_on_success_of_thing at all, because to have
thrown an error is very unexpected behavior.
Granted scenarios like that are uncommon, but the most important
reason for using the separate `else` scope is to help reduce
programmer error because they forgot that the error handling in
the catch block will break something when it was entered because
depends_on_success_of_thing failed.
There's also the matter of readability and cleanliness. It is (in
my opinion, at least) an intuitive and concise way to handle a
not-uncommon case.
