On 08/13/2012 05:54 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 13-Aug-12 19:50, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/13/2012 05:32 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think the true cryptonite that melts "checked exceptions" to a pile of
green goo is templated code:
So (*yawn*) tell what kind of exception specification the following
function should have:
auto joiner(RoR, Separator)(RoR r, Separator sep);
How would you guarantee upfront what kind of exceptions it can throw is
beyond me. It all depends on code that you can't reach or know by the
very definition of template.
Well, presumably the exception specification would be inferred
automatically for templates.
What's the propose then?
The same as the OT describes. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly no
proponent of adding Java-style checked exceptions to D.
And how end user will get any idea what to put
in his function where he uses it?
The end user is aware of what the template arguments are.
I see one, but it's not pretty - run compiler once - see complaints,
add requested types to throws, re-run the compiler?
Either add requested types to throws or catch and handle the respective
exceptions. I assume that this is basically the entire point of
statically checked exception specifications.
