On 3/15/2012 2:13 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 14 de marzo a las 16:42 me escribiste:
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.
Why? That's not always the case.
How do you know it's not the case for a particular instance? That's the problem.
And what could happen if you run
cleanup code in a program that you say is completely invalid? So why
would you care if the program gets more corrupted?
Because it can corrupt whatever external thing it is supposed to be doing.
This is specially bad if a memory allocation fail is an Error. It
basically forces you to check every allocation for a failure and
translate it yourself to some kind of Exception if you are being careful
to write some code that can survive to a memory allocation failure.
That sounds good in theory, but in practice, almost no program can recover from
out of memory failure. Even those that pretend they can usually cannot because
such was never tested.
Why on earth do you want to make life miserable to people that have some
valid use case for this, just to avoid corrupting a little more
a program that's already corrupted.
I believe it is a *serious* mistake to believe one can recover a program that
has become corrupted.
Also adding special cases is ALWAYS confusing and error prone. Please,
please, please don't make errors a broken special case, unless you have
a very strong reason.
I do have a good reason.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
