On 2/20/12 1:04 PM, foobar wrote:
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 17:47:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/20/12 11:32 AM, foobar wrote:
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 17:12:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/20/12 11:08 AM, Mafi wrote:
If it's supposed to be simple factorization, then you should replace
"throw r" with "return r". Then the name of that function doesn't make
much sense anymore. But then you can better search for throw in user
code and the stack traces aren't obfuscated anymore.
throw createEx!AcmeException("....");
I think that's a great idea, thanks.
Andrei
I fail to see the point in this. Why is the above better than
throw AcmeException("....");
If you want to avoid boilerplate code in the definition of
AcmeException, this can be better accomplished with a mixin.
The advantage is that e.g. the compiler can see that flow ends at
throw. Other languages have a "none" type that function may return to
signal they never end.
Andrei
I meant -
what's the benefit of:
throw createEx!AcmeException("....");
vs.
throw AcmeException("....");
As far as I can see, the former has no benefits over the simpler latter
option.
That's simply a workaround for non-inherited constructors - nothing more
should be read into it.
Andrei
