"deadalnix" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Le 25/02/2012 07:26, Daniel Murphy a écrit :
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/738
>
> I do think this approach have a flaw. If we go in that direction, then it
> push devs to create new Exception type just to catch them, because this is
> the only way we have.
>
This is a different issue to whether or not we have the syntax to catch
multiple exceptions with a single catch block.
> If I understand properly your pull request, the compiler will be
> duplicating catch block ? If it is the case, would it be possible to use
> static if to use type specific stuff of E1, E2 or E3, depending on which
> one we are facing ?
>
No, it just creates stub catch blocks that jump to the real one.
Duplicating the blocks would have weird effects on things like static
variables. I think that kind of code duplication is better done with
something that works like mixing in case statements.
catch(auto e : E1, E2) { body; }
->
catch(E1 e)
{
goto catchE2;
}
catch(E2 e)
{
catchE2:
body;
}
