On 2013-11-22 02:51:11 +0000, growler said:
Maybe that's why it is considered broken? The first point was to 'fix'
scope(failure) and then use it.
However, I don't know I haven't been following the discussion closely enough...
I think fixing it means disallowing return and assert(0) here. Since
these things generate unreachable code. If it's fixed in the way I
think it should be, it still wouldn't be useful here.
The proposed fix was to make it so scope(failure) assert(0); Is
detected as preventing the exception, so functions could be marked
nothrow. I don't think that's a good idea for the above reason.
I'd rather see Walter's proposed fix
(http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]?page=3#post-l6ds2b:241ii3:241:40digitalmars.com)
of std.datetime, and my proposed fix for scope(failure).
-Shammah
