On Monday, 4 August 2014 at 04:09:07 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Almost all exceptions I throw are in relation to bad input
data, and they
are to be caught at a slightly higher level of input
processing. My code
has become try/catch-tastic, and I really don't like looking at
it.
Why does it matter it has a lot of try/catch-blocks.
It rather sickens me and reminds me of Java
So just because your code looks like Java you want to come up
with a new feature that is exactly like "catch", but with a new
name. Instead your code will become scope-tastic (whatever that
means) and it doesn't look like Java because it use a different
keyword.
, and I'm strongly tempted to just
abandon my experiment and return to C-style error handling with
sentinel
values.
I can't see how that will improve anything. Seems like you have
some grudge against Java and don't won't your code to look like
it.
So... why not make scope guards more useful? It wouldn't be
hard.
scope(failure, MyException e) is completely non-destructive,
and adds
significant power to the concept.
I think it's better to support catch-blocks without a try-block.
BTW, if I recall correctly, I have already proposed this and it
was turned down.
Yeah, I can't imagine a use for it either.
Logging perhaps.
