On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 at 07:05:07 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 at 17:46:17 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
So I guess the way forward here for the Druntime code is to
abandon the synchronized() statement and use locks directly?
I believe this is the way. Synchronized statements don't add
any crucial value compared to plain locks. At the same time
forbidding throwing from even more runtime overrides would be
both annoying and unnecessary restrictive.
It is probably also worth re-iterating on my long standing
position that adding more `nothrow` in fundamental facilities is
a false goal and almost always does more harm than good.
Exceptions are main (and pretty much only) error handling
facility in D. By adding `nothrow` base runtime class methods you
make impossible for D developers to use standard language
facilities and force uncalled hacks to workaround it.
`nothrow` is much more intrusive than `@safe` or `pure` in that
sense and should not be applied blindly to everything simply
because it is possible.
