Re: static try?

[bcs]

On 11/01/2011 10:04 AM, kenji hara wrote:
--1;
It you want to reduce duplication of long code, you can use string mixin.
enum code = q{ ...long code... };
static if (is(typeof({ mixin(code); })))
{
   mixin(code);
}
else
{
   ...
}


Please no! I've thought for years that string mixins are seriously 
overused in D. IMnsHO they should only be used as a method of last 
resort. For every case I've seen where there is a alternative to a 
string mixin, the alternative was cleaner.

If people don't like the static try/catch, how about: static try/else?

Kenji Hara

2011/10/31 Mehrdad<wfunct...@hotmail.com>:
I've written this piece of code a fair number of times:

     static if (is(typeof(foo()))) { foo(); }
     else { bar(); }

When the expression inside the condition (i.e. the call to foo()) gets
complicated, you get lots of code duplication and things become harder to
read.

So I'm thinking, why not just introduce a 'static try'?

Something like:

    static try
    {
        foo();
    }
    catch  // (string ex)  // perhaps let them know what the error is?
    {
        bar();
    }

It's a clean and immensely readable improvement IMO, and it doesn't
introduce any new keywords or any breaking changes to anything.

How's the idea?