On 25.02.2012 06:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay, the "The Right Approach to Exceptions" thread is a huge, confusing mess
at this point without a clear, definitive conclusion, and we need one. So, I'm
posting here, in a new thread, what appears to me to be the conclusion that
that thread comes t
Timon Gehr:
> Do you realize that syntactic sugar improvements are trivial to
> implement (just re-write the AST a little), and have almost no influence
> on the existing code base?
In my opinion it's good to have a syntax to catch a many exceptions "at once".
But this is yet another special sy
Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/26/2012 07:46 PM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Please do not do that. It will introduce additional set of bugs and
increase maintaining effort for the sake of small syntactic sugar
improvements. I think current exception handling style is enough. Its
successively used in C# for
On 02/26/2012 07:46 PM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Please do not do that. It will introduce additional set of bugs and
increase maintaining effort for the sake of small syntactic sugar
improvements. I think current exception handling style is enough. Its
successively used in C# for years.
Do you r
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay, the "The Right Approach to Exceptions" thread is a huge, confusing mess
at this point without a clear, definitive conclusion, and we need one. So, I'm
posting here, in a new thread, what appears to me to be the conclusion that
that thread comes to and see if we can g
On Sunday, February 26, 2012 12:24:09 Kagamin wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 February 2012 at 23:32:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > which resets the stack trace.
>
> This is the issue, you're trying to address with these proposals?
It's _an_ issue, not the only issue. The bigger issue there is
On Saturday, 25 February 2012 at 23:32:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
which resets the stack trace.
This is the issue, you're trying to address with these proposals?
"deadalnix" wrote in message news:jib71o$1v05
>
> Wow, it didn't got that. This is nice, but then, the Exception type is
> completely lost.
>
> It does means that we are not interested in the Exception type, but of its
> presence, and so, maybe we just have created useless Exception types and
>
"kennytm" wrote in message
news:1711314076351895446.251635kennytm-gmail@news.digitalmars.com...
>>
>> catch(auto e : E1, E2) { body; }
>> ->
>>
>> catch(E1 e)
>> {
>> goto catchE2;
>> }
>> catch(E2 e)
>> {
>> catchE2:
>> body;
>> }
>
> Won't work unless the compiler enforce that 'body' do
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 07:29:01 Kevin Cox wrote:
> I think there should also be multiple catches so that you can deal with
> different exceptions different ways without trying to upcast them over and
> over again.
You can do that now. Just catch each specific exception type that you want t
"Daniel Murphy" wrote:
> "deadalnix" wrote in message
> news:jiagbg$liu$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> Le 25/02/2012 07:26, Daniel Murphy a Ècrit :
>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/738
>>
>> I do think this approach have a flaw. If we go in that direction, then it
>> push dev
Le 25/02/2012 14:11, Daniel Murphy a écrit :
"deadalnix" wrote in message
news:jiagbg$liu$1...@digitalmars.com...
Le 25/02/2012 07:26, Daniel Murphy a �crit :
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/738
I do think this approach have a flaw. If we go in that direction, then it
push
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:11:56AM +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote:
[...]
> What about that lisp exception/recovery idea? That was the most
> interesting idea imho.
Deadalnix & myself did a few skeletal prototypes of it, and I think it
should be possible to implement it on top of the existing exception
"Martin Nowak" wrote in message
news:op.v98ik4hysqu...@dawg-freebsd.lan...
>> It's currently 'catch(auto e : E1, E2, E3)' but changing the syntax is
>> trivial if everyone decides they want it.
>>
> We should be consistent and allow to specify a type instead of auto.
That's a very good idea.
>
"deadalnix" wrote in message
news:jiagbg$liu$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Le 25/02/2012 07:26, Daniel Murphy a écrit :
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/738
>
> I do think this approach have a flaw. If we go in that direction, then it
> push devs to create new Exception type jus
Could you give a code example of what you mean? You can still use multiple
catch blocks perfectly well with this patch.
"Kevin Cox" wrote in message
news:mailman.97.1330172953.24984.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I think there should also be multiple catches so that you can deal with
diffe
It's currently 'catch(auto e : E1, E2, E3)' but changing the syntax is
trivial if everyone decides they want it.
We should be consistent and allow to specify a type instead of auto.
The exception types (E1, E2, E3) should expand TypeTuples similar to how
you
declare base classes.
alias TypeT
I think there should also be multiple catches so that you can deal with
different exceptions different ways without trying to upcast them over and
over again.
On Feb 25, 2012 1:30 AM, "Daniel Murphy" wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
> news:mailman.93.1330149312.24984.digitalmar...@pu
Le 25/02/2012 10:11, Johannes Pfau a écrit :
Am Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:53:47 -0800
schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
There were other ideas that were discussed in the thread, but I think
that these are the ones that we have at least some consensus on.
However, given the mess that thread is, we really shou
Le 25/02/2012 07:26, Daniel Murphy a écrit :
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.93.1330149312.24984.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
However, regardless of which we choose, someone is going to have to take
the
time to implement it, since odds are that Walter isn't going to do it. So
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 21:12:51 Daniel Murphy wrote:
> Lol I've been around for a while.
I know. But particularly over the last few months, you seem to be doing a lot.
- Jonathan M Davis
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.94.1330151556.24984.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:26:02 Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
>> news:mailman.93.1330149312.24984.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>
>> > However, regardless
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 10:11:56 Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:53:47 -0800
>
> schrieb Jonathan M Davis :
> > There were other ideas that were discussed in the thread, but I think
> > that these are the ones that we have at least some consensus on.
> > However, given the mes
Am Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:53:47 -0800
schrieb Jonathan M Davis :
> There were other ideas that were discussed in the thread, but I think
> that these are the ones that we have at least some consensus on.
> However, given the mess that thread is, we really should make it
> clear in a separate thread (
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 17:26:02 Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
> news:mailman.93.1330149312.24984.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> > However, regardless of which we choose, someone is going to have to take
> > the
> > time to implement it, since odds are that
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.93.1330149312.24984.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> However, regardless of which we choose, someone is going to have to take
> the
> time to implement it, since odds are that Walter isn't going to do it. So,
> whether we end up with a feature alo
Okay, the "The Right Approach to Exceptions" thread is a huge, confusing mess
at this point without a clear, definitive conclusion, and we need one. So, I'm
posting here, in a new thread, what appears to me to be the conclusion that
that thread comes to and see if we can get some sort of consens
27 matches
Mail list logo
