• AJG (8/8) Aug 20 2005 Hi,
• Derek Parnell (9/18) Aug 20 2005 At first, I thought this might be because contract failures are not mean...
• AJG (3/14) Aug 20 2005 I haven't seen it anywhere.
• =?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEvDvGhuZQ==?= (33/49) Aug 27 2005 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

AJG <AJG_member pathlink.com> writes:

Hi,

For some reason, one can't throw exceptions within In/Out blocks. This seems
rather arbitrary; moreover, it's pointless because you can get around it with a
dummy function.

So, is this "by-design," or just an oversight?

Either way, it would be nice to eliminate this inconvenient restriction.

Thanks,
--AJG.

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 04:59:25 +0000 (UTC), AJG wrote:

 Hi,
 
 For some reason, one can't throw exceptions within In/Out blocks. This seems
 rather arbitrary; moreover, it's pointless because you can get around it with a
 dummy function.
 
 So, is this "by-design," or just an oversight?
 
 Either way, it would be nice to eliminate this inconvenient restriction.

At first, I thought this might be because contract failures are not meant
to be recoverable, but from testing it seems you can catch an assert error
coming from an out{} block. So I don't understand this restriction either.
Is it documented?

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/08/2005 3:42:02 PM

AJG <AJG_member pathlink.com> writes:

 For some reason, one can't throw exceptions within In/Out blocks. This seems
 rather arbitrary; moreover, it's pointless because you can get around it with a
 dummy function.
 
 So, is this "by-design," or just an oversight?
 
 Either way, it would be nice to eliminate this inconvenient restriction.

At first, I thought this might be because contract failures are not meant
to be recoverable, but from testing it seems you can catch an assert error
coming from an out{} block. So I don't understand this restriction either.
Is it documented?

I haven't seen it anywhere.
I say leave the docs alone, and just get rid of it ;).
--AJG.

=?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEvDvGhuZQ==?= <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

AJG schrieb:

For some reason, one can't throw exceptions within In/Out blocks. This seems
rather arbitrary; moreover, it's pointless because you can get around it with a
dummy function.

So, is this "by-design," or just an oversight?

Either way, it would be nice to eliminate this inconvenient restriction.

At first, I thought this might be because contract failures are not meant
to be recoverable, but from testing it seems you can catch an assert error
coming from an out{} block. So I don't understand this restriction either.
Is it documented?

 
 
 I haven't seen it anywhere.
 I say leave the docs alone, and just get rid of it ;).

There are two interesting question tough.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dbc.html









1)
Has "throw" side effects?

2)
If "throw" has now side effects, what is the exception tree of the
following code?

a) Exception -> SomeException
b) Exception -> {auto insert: InException} -> Exception

****
class SomeException : Exception{
}

void sample()
in{
	throw new SomeException;
}body{
}

Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFDEJ/N3w+/yD4P9tIRAjR8AKDEfuTPxfByAlIl68DoDFDeK0438gCgg/lk
Yp1VwuXPsArleHokvBsNRkI=
=b97T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----