On Tuesday, March 18, 2025 1:19:49 PM MDT bauss via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 March 2025 at 18:04:12 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 March 2025 at 07:42:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> > wrote:
> >> The base class constructors are not nothrow, so WrappedTCP's
> >>
On Tuesday, 18 March 2025 at 18:04:12 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 March 2025 at 07:42:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The base class constructors are not nothrow, so WrappedTCP's
constructor cannot be nothrow. There really isn't a way out of
that, because if a constructor th
On Tuesday, 18 March 2025 at 07:42:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The base class constructors are not nothrow, so WrappedTCP's
constructor cannot be nothrow. There really isn't a way out of
that, because if a constructor throws, the object's state is
destroyed. So, catching and handling the Ex
On Monday, March 17, 2025 4:14:21 PM MDT Andy Valencia via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> The presence of the "accepting" API in Socket seems to indicate
> that subclassing Socket/TcpSocket is intended to be supported.
> But I'm just not seeing my way through the twisty maze of pure
> and @nothrow b
On Monday, 17 March 2025 at 22:14:21 UTC, Andy Valencia wrote:
The presence of the "accepting" API in Socket seems to indicate
that subclassing Socket/TcpSocket is intended to be supported.
But I'm just not seeing my way through the twisty maze of pure
and @nothrow barriers?
[...]
It seems
