On 7/16/2014 4:04 PM, safety0ff wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 23:14:49 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:If I'm understanding this correctly, you want to deprecate the (somewhat popular) nameless exception syntax so that we can keep the "should be removed with prejudice" catch-everything syntax?Is this the bottom line? Is DIP65 formally rejected? ping...
Unless a convincing counter argument emerges, yes.
