On Sunday, February 19, 2012 19:00:20 Daniel Murphy wrote: > I wasn't really serious about implicit fallthrough.
Lately, it seems like I can never tell whether anyone's being serious or not online. :) > Out of the syntaxes I could come up with: > catch(Ex1, Ex2 e) > catch(e : Ex1, Ex2) > catch(Ex1 | Ex2 e) // java 7 syntax, horrible > > I like (e : list) the best. Naturally it would also accept a type tuple of > exceptions. > > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7540 LOL. Personally, I actually think that the Java 7 syntax looks great (I'd never seen it before), but catch(e : Ex1, Ex2) is just as good and more consistent with the language as a whole, since it doesn't try to give any operators a new meaning (as Java's does). - Jonathan M Davis