On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 11:50:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
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.
True, but a hypothetical `NoGcException.create` _is_ `@nogc`
(same as my MallocException), and is there really any difference
between reading/writing `new Foo` and `Foo.create`?
Also, there's `enforce`, which is where I suspect a lot of
throwing happens anyway. It could use DbI to figure out from the
exception type what to do.
My $0.02: Either we are going to make `new Exception` be @nogc,
or we are going to require people to type something different.
Or be able to customise `new T`, which feels less hacky than it
magically meaning something different if the type is a Throwable.
I know that there were class allocators in D1 and that they're
depecreated but I wasn't around back then to know why.
Atila
