On 4/5/2017 5:07 AM, deadalnix wrote:
You can do that, but that's 100% equivalent to:try { ... } catch (scope Exception e) { ... }Unless you want to do something specific with the owned case ? You seems to be under the impression that this does anything specific for catch/throw when it doesn't.
Your original proposal listed 3 different kinds of catch, now it seems different. It's clear to me that this is more of an idea than a proposal - a lot more work needs to go into it.
For example, adding an `owned` type constructor is a major, major language change. Issues of implicit conversion, overloading, covariance, partial ordering, type deduction, mangling, construction, postblit, TypeInfo, inout, etc., all have to be addressed and worked out. Then there's legacy compatibility, deprecation issues, interaction with other languages, interaction with multiple storage allocators, etc.
The C# paper is 5 years old, and it has not been adopted by C# for unknown reasons. C# is a much more constrained language than D is, making it more practical for C#. It not being adopted by C# suggests problems with it - perhaps it doesn't deliver the promised results enough to justify its cost?
Making this work for D involves a great deal of careful design work, and even more implementation work. It also includes some significant risk that it will prove unworkable.
I don't believe that a back-and-forth disjointed email chain here is going to resolve the major issues with it. Until a far more thorough design proposal is made, I'm going to bow out.
