Le 21/02/2012 03:33, Robert Jacques a écrit :
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:21:56 -0600, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 02:57:08PM -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/20/12 1:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>On Monday, February 20, 2012 20:42:28 deadalnix wrote:
>>Le 20/02/2012 20:27, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
>>>On Monday, February 20, 2012 11:15:08 H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>>That's why I proposed to use runtime reflection to scan the
exception
>>>>object for applicable fields. Then you get the best of both
worlds: the
>>>>message formatter doesn't need to know what the fields are, and
you get
>>>>full compile-time type checking for catching code that directly
accesses
>>>>the fields.
>>>
>>>That would certainly be better.
>>>
>>>- Jonathan M Davis
>>
>>This is way better than Variant[string], but unimplemented ATM.
>
>Yes, but you can use compile-time constructs to generate it. And as you
>pointed out in another post, tupleof should do the trick.
Regardless, the
>point is that using reflection of some kind is a much better
solution than
>using variant.
Agreed. Ideally adding a sort of mixin to any class would enable it
for advanced run-time information:
class DRoxException : Exception
{
mixin(enableRTTI);
... normal implementation ...
}
[...]
Doesn't this need compiler/language support?
Nope. See (https://jshare.johnshopkins.edu/rjacque2/public_html/ )
Variant e = new MyException();
writeln( e.filename, e.line, e.column);
Aren't __traits and opDispatch fun?
opDispatch is nice, but rather incomplete. It doesn't handle template
methods for example.
