On 5/26/17 4:49 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/25/2017 4:54 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
I think maybe the problem isn't with `throw` but with `catch`. What if
instead we make it so that:
catch(scope T ex) { /*...*/; }
Means:
catch(scope T ex) { /*...*/; ex.__dtor; }
The trouble comes in when one starts copying exception references
around. Who then is responsible for destroying it?
This isn't the trouble. The trouble is that `new Exception` is not
@nogc, and there isn't a way to fix all existing exception code easily.
But to answer your question, don't mark the exception scope in that
case. The compiler should complain if you copy it outside the scope, no?
My $0.02: Either we are going to make `new Exception` be @nogc, or we
are going to require people to type something different. IMO, I feel if
we can create a library solution, and use dfix or similar tool to allow
people to update their code, then we are in a much better place.
I need to review the DIP again, but last time I read it, there were some
issues I saw. I will post those in a while.
-Steve
