On Friday, August 24, 2018 1:31:21 AM MDT Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > Yeah. We probably should have required that destructors be nothrow and > > force destructor failures to be treated as Errors. > > I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. > > If you're willing to have an error raised by a destructor abort the > whole program, isn't the C++ solution preferable (abort the program only > on double errors, which hardly ever happens)?
The C++ code bases that I've worked on have typically marked destructors with throw() or noexcept, which effectively kills your program whenever an exception is thrown for a destructor, and I'm not sure if I've ever seen it be triggered. It's just not a typical bug in my experience. Either way, since I would consider it a serious bug for an exception to be thrown from a destructor, if it happens, I'd rather have the program just die so that the bug can be noticed and fixed. - Jonathan M Davis
