Something I keep going back and forth on is the best way to handle exception reporting in different contexts. There are so many idioms to use here and none of them feel quite ideal. I'm not sure the best way to improve it, but I'm hoping a discussion might produce some useful ideas.

Some suggestions, apart from the obvious "exceptions shouldn't require the gc":

- nothrow might be repurposed to mean "doesn't throw recoverable exceptions", and it not forbid throwing objects that inherit from Error. It's limiting to have to use asserts to report nonrecoverable errors in nothrow code, rather than specialized error classes that might provide better information as to what went wrong.

- pure might no longer prevent code from throwing `static const` objects, so that error reporting can still be done using @nogc and user-defined error classes in pure functions. It's unintuitive that asserts and `throw new WhateverError` should be allowed, but not `static const error = new WhateverError; throw error`.

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 19:50:19 +0000, pineapple wrote:
> - nothrow might be repurposed to mean "doesn't throw recoverable exceptions", and it not forbid throwing objects that inherit from Error.

That's what it means today:

  void foo() nothrow
  {
    throw new Error("Ohai!");
  }