On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 21:16:00 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
As Andrei says -- Destroy!
Nah, I agree. Actually, I'm of the opinion that string error
messages in exceptions ought to be considered harmful: you
shouldn't be doing strings at all. All the useful information
should be in the type - the class name and the members with
details.
Well, defining a new class can sometimes be a mild hassle... but
for really common ones, we really should just do it, and other
ones can be done as templated classes or templated factory
functions that define a new class right there and then.
http://arsdnet.net/dcode/exception.d
That's the proof-of-concept I wrote for this years ago, go to the
bottom of the file for the usage example. It uses a reflection
mixin to make writing the new classes easy, and I even wrote an
enforce thing that can add more info by creating a subclass that
stores arguments to functions so it can print it all (assuming
they are sane to copy like strings or value things lol)
enforce!fopen("nofile.txt".ptr, "rb".ptr);
MyExceptionBase@exception.d(38): fopen call failed
filename = nofile.txt
mode = rb
----------------
