On 04/29/2013 11:26 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
On 13-04-27 08:49 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
Hi all,
This is going to be long, but I've tried to organise my thoughts clearly
and as succinctly as possible.
I've read your email a few times and I _think_ it mostly consists of a
request to add catchable exceptions to the language. Which we won't do
(or I won't do, and I will resist strongly as I think it will hurt
users, performance and correctness of code). I will reply -- somewhat
repetitively, I'm afraid -- to minor points but want to clarify a few
things in advance:
Non-catchable exceptions struck me as the best idea in the language.
Maybe C++ will be remembered for the destructor, and Rust will be
remembered for exceptions that make design simpler.
As a point of terminology, "non-resumable" exceptions are what C++
has, and the "resumable" exception is an ill-conceived Microsoft
extension in their VC++ product. "Resume", there, meant to jump
out of code running at a catch site and back to the point of the
throw, making the throw statement a sort of no-op with side effects.
Nathan Myers
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
