On 3/15/2012 9:29 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Walter Bright<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/12/2012 7:07 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Walter Bright<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/12/2012 2:39 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/12/2012 12:34 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
I'm on the fence about whether attempting cleanup when an Error is thrown is
desired behavior. If there is no cleanup, why allow Errors to be caught at
all? We may as well simply call abort() at the point they're thrown.
So that an informative message can be printed, the backup engaged, attempt to
shut down gracefully, log the failure details to a file, etc.
… none of which may work if scope(exit) calls weren't run when the stack was
unwound, since acquired mutexes would still be locked, etc. I'd feel a lot
less safe with having effectively done a longjmp across code that normally
assumes finalization than with whatever the cause of the assertion did in the
first place.
It's understood it may not work.
So what's the reason to not call finalizers?
The program is corrupted at that point. The less code one attempts to run, the
better.
Is the program really corrupted though?
You cannot know that.
I really think that going down the path of thinking one can recover from
programming bugs is the route to disaster. It goes against everything I know
about how to make safe, reliable systems.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
