Right now, you can catch every exception with "try { something; } catch
{ somethingelse; }".
Can we get rid of this abomination before D2 is finalized? I claim that
it's completely useless, and even more so, every single use of this is a
bug.
If you really want to catch everything, you might
grauzone, el 25 de octubre a las 12:09 me escribiste:
> Right now, you can catch every exception with "try { something; }
> catch { somethingelse; }".
>
> Can we get rid of this abomination before D2 is finalized? I claim
> that it's completely useless, and even more so, every single use of
> this
grauzone wrote:
Right now, you can catch every exception with "try { something; } catch
{ somethingelse; }".
Can we get rid of this abomination before D2 is finalized? I claim that
it's completely useless, and even more so, every single use of this is a
bug.
If you really want to catch ever
Christopher Wright wrote:
PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
"Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for runtime errors, Exception
for normal exceptions.) Isn't it dangerous to execute arbitrary user
code in presence of what is basically an internal error?
A
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
grauzone, el 25 de octubre a las 12:09 me escribiste:
Right now, you can catch every exception with "try { something; }
catch { somethingelse; }".
Can we get rid of this abomination before D2 is finalized? I claim
that it's completely useless, and even more so, every si
grauzone wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Please keep full attributions.
PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
"Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for runtime errors,
Exception for normal exceptions.) Isn't it dangerous to execute
arbitrary user code in p
Hello grauzone,
PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
"Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for runtime errors, Exception
for normal exceptions.) Isn't it dangerous to execute arbitrary user
code in presence of what is basically an internal error?
If a thrown
BCS wrote:
Hello grauzone,
PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
"Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for runtime errors, Exception
for normal exceptions.) Isn't it dangerous to execute arbitrary user
code in presence of what is basically an internal error?
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:47 +0300, grauzone wrote:
BCS wrote:
Hello grauzone,
PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
"Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for runtime errors, Exception
for normal exceptions.) Isn't it dangerous to execute arbitrary user
code
grauzone, el 26 de octubre a las 08:44 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >grauzone, el 25 de octubre a las 12:09 me escribiste:
> >>Right now, you can catch every exception with "try { something; }
> >>catch { somethingelse; }".
> >>
> >>Can we get rid of this abomination before D2 is fin
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:12:12 +0300, "Denis Koroskin"
<2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:47 +0300, grauzone wrote:
>
>> BCS wrote:
>>> Hello grauzone,
>>>
PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
"Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:47 +0300, grauzone wrote:
BCS wrote:
Hello grauzone,
PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
"Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for runtime errors, Exception
for normal exceptions.) Isn't it dangerous to exec
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:23:38 +0300, Christopher Wright
wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:47 +0300, grauzone wrote:
BCS wrote:
Hello grauzone,
PS: I wonder, should the runtime really execute finally blocks if an
"Error" exception is thrown? (Errors are for runtime e
Denis Koroskin wrote:
OutOfMemory exception is supposed to be thrown with a call to
onOutOfMemoryError(), that throws OutOfMemoryError.classinfo.init (i.e.
global immutable instance of an Error).
That's clever. I like it.
14 matches
Mail list logo
