On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 13:46:20 Walter Bright wrote: > On 6/12/2013 1:29 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > > Looking at dmd's source, looks like Walter actually wrote code to parse a > > throws Exception, etc. to be part of the function signature but stripped > > it out (surely because that's annoying). > > That detritus should be removed. > > It was a bad idea, which is why I disabled it.
Well, I assume that it was the beginnings of a checked exceptions implementations, and checked exceptions do have their advantages, but the general verdict of the programming world as a whole does seem to be that they were ultimately a bad idea. Sometimes, it _does_ suck to not know exactly which exceptions a function can throw, but on the whole, I think that we hit a good balance with nothrow. What I find most interesting about checked exceptions is the fact that almost everyone thinks that they're a fantastic idea when they first encounter them and yet they're actually a bad idea. It's actually a good example of how a feature sometimes needs to be thoroughly field-tested before it becomes clear how good or bad it is. - Jonathan M Davis
