On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Graydon Hoare gray...@mozilla.comwrote:
I'm sympathetic to the desire here, as with all attempts to get
exceptions right. Sadly I've never really seen it; I don't think anyone
has
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I way off base with this? An embarrassing misconception? To summarize my
train of thought
* Catchable exceptions can be implemented
* But we don't want to, because it would force everyone to think about
exception
On 06/06/2013 8:59 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
Am I way off base with this? An embarrassing misconception? To summarize
my train of thought
* Catchable exceptions can be implemented
* But we don't want to, because it would force everyone to think about
exception safety
* That could however be
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:58:28 -0700
From: gray...@mozilla.com
To: bill_my...@outlook.com
CC: rust-dev@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: [rust-dev] Adding exception handling as syntax sugar with
declared exceptions
On 12/05/2013 8:00 PM, Bill Myers wrote:
This is a suggestion for adding
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Graydon Hoare gray...@mozilla.com wrote:
I'm sympathetic to the desire here, as with all attempts to get
exceptions right. Sadly I've never really seen it; I don't think anyone
has really worked out the right way to work with catchable-exceptions in
a
On 12/05/2013 8:00 PM, Bill Myers wrote:
This is a suggestion for adding an exception system to Rust that
satisfies these requirements:
1. Unwinding does NOT pass through code that is not either in a function
that declares throwing exceptions or in a try block (instead, that
triggers task
This is a suggestion for adding an exception system to Rust that satisfies
these requirements:
1. Unwinding does NOT pass through code that is not either in a function that
declares throwing exceptions or in a try block (instead, that triggers task
failure)
2. Callers can ignore the fact that a
