On 2014-08-04 12:09, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I hate pointless brace and indentation spam, I feel it severely damages
the readability of my code. And try/catch has a natural tendency to
produce horrid nested structures.
I would rather C-style error reporting via sentinel values and 'if()'
than try/catch in practically every case imaginable, especially when
try/catches start to nest themselves.
If you want to the if-statements to have the same semantics won't those
be nested as well. BTW, why don't you just wrap the whole function in a
try-block and add several catch blocks to it. No need to nest them, it
will also be closer to how scope-statements behave.
Okay, so why are scope guards such a key talking point in D if people
loved try/catch?
'scope-tastic' code would be flat and sequential. I find flat and
sequential code MUCH easier to reason about. Again, why would anyone
care about 'scope' if they didn't feel this way at some level?
You need to nest the scope-statements to have the same semantics as
nested try-catch. Or don't nest the try-catch, see above.
, 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.
It will produce flat sequential code which is easier to follow.
You can do that with try-catch as well, see above.
I agree, I had the same thought. But I felt it was better to integrate
it into an existing (and popular) structure than to form a new one.
I actually think there would be a valuable place for both though.
So you think a "catch" with an implicit "try" is a completely new feature?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
