On 9/28/16 7:58 AM, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 07:47:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* The "Breaking changes" section should include how the following
change in semantics would be addressed. Consider:
try
if (expression)
try { ... }
catch (Exception) { ... }
else { ... }
finally { ... }
This code is currently legal and binds the "else" clause to the "if"
and the "finally" to the first "try". The proposed feature will bind
the "else" and the "finally" to the second try and then probably fail
to compile because there is no "catch" or "finally" matching the first
"try".
Yeah... that's a pain.
How about using different keywords:
try
{
// blah
}
/*else*/ catch (nothrow)
{
// on success.
}
No. Just no ;)
The more I think about this submission, I feel like the benefits are
quite slim. The else clause is really simply a disabling of all the
exception handlers at the end of the function. The uses seem very
There are some funky English problems too.
For example, should it be valid to use "else" without a catch? This
reads weird:
try { ... }
else { ...}
I think probably the else should be invalid without a valid catch
clause. Otherwise, you could just use scope(success).
The boolean to indicate an exception was thrown is cumbersome, but not
horrible. Having the compiler manage the boolean may make this cleaner
(e.g. finally(bool thrown)), I like it better than the else suggestion.
-Steve
