This is the discussion thread for the Final Review of DIP 1029, "Add throw as Function Attribute":

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/9db80ddadcf5a220958ddcfec14b9c71cdb43d1c/DIPs/DIP1029.md

The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on May 1, or when I make a post declaring it complete. Discussion in this thread may continue beyond that point.

Here in the discussion thread, you are free to discuss anything and everything related to the DIP. Express your support or opposition, debate alternatives, argue the merits, etc.

However, if you have any specific feedback on how to improve the proposal itself, then please post it in the feedback thread. The feedback thread will be the source for the review summary I write at the end of this review round. I will post a link to that thread immediately following this post. Just be sure to read and understand the Reviewer Guidelines before posting there:

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md

And my blog post on the difference between the Discussion and Feedback threads:

https://dlang.org/blog/2020/01/26/dip-reviews-discussion-vs-feedback/

Please stay on topic here. I will delete posts that are completely off-topic.

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 11:28:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

>
> However, if you have any specific feedback on how to improve the proposal itself, then please post it in the feedback thread. The feedback thread will be the source for the review summary I write at the end of this review round. I will post a link to that thread immediately following this post.

The feedback thread is here:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/qhtqeavhyzjfamhgcjjl@forum.dlang.org

No objection to it as written, but there have been zero changes to the text between this review and the last, except adding the summary of the (apparently ignored by the author) previous round.

What's the point of going over an identical document again?

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 11:31:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 11:28:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> However, if you have any specific feedback on how to improve the proposal itself, then please post it in the feedback thread. The feedback thread will be the source for the review summary I write at the end of this review round. I will post a link to that thread immediately following this post.
>
> The feedback thread is here:
>
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/qhtqeavhyzjfamhgcjjl@forum.dlang.org

If I understand correctly, nothrow functions may throw Errors, but throw functions may throw Errors and Exceptions?
If a nothrow function throws an Error, may the outer function catch it in a well-defined manner?

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 11:28:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> This is the discussion thread for the Final Review of DIP 1029, "Add throw as Function Attribute":
>
> [...]

Have the ideas below been discussed?

- an attribute "exception_aware": does the function body use catch or throw?
- using "!!" to designate attribute remove: !!pure, !!nothrow. It is visible, it is explicit.

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 12:58:56 UTC, James Lu wrote:
> On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 11:31:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 11:28:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> However, if you have any specific feedback on how to improve the proposal itself, then please post it in the feedback thread. The feedback thread will be the source for the review summary I write at the end of this review round. I will post a link to that thread immediately following this post.
>>
>> The feedback thread is here:
>>
>> https://forum.dlang.org/post/qhtqeavhyzjfamhgcjjl@forum.dlang.org
>
> If a nothrow function throws an Error, may the outer function catch it in a well-defined manner?

Catching `Error` is always undefined. That's why nothrow may throw them in the first place.

On 4/17/20 8:52 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> No objection to it as written, but there have been zero changes to the text between this review and the last, except adding the summary of the (apparently ignored by the author) previous round.

There is a difference between ignored and advice considered and not taken.

Though I think in at least one case (I posted on the review thread) something important was missed.

-Steve

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 14:39:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> There is a difference between ignored and advice considered and not taken.

But even if it was all simply not taken, I'm OK with a response "I don't care, take it or leave it" (though two of the bullets don't even have that, just nothing)... but why are we wasting our time doing a discussion thread to review the same document again?

Again, the text is *identical* to the last review, so what does the DIP manager expect from us this time that would be any different than last time?

We complain that newsgroup discussions go in circles. Well, this is literally called a "round" lol, but it just seems ridiculous.

On 4/17/20 1:01 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 14:39:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> There is a difference between ignored and advice considered and not taken.
> 
> But even if it was all simply not taken, I'm OK with a response "I don't care, take it or leave it" (though two of the bullets don't even have that, just nothing)... but why are we wasting our time doing a discussion thread to review the same document again?

I think it's just part of the red tape we created for ourselves!

But it also gives the chance to reiterate the importance of advice not taken, or rephrase the argument in a way that is more convincing.

> Again, the text is *identical* to the last review, so what does the DIP manager expect from us this time that would be any different than last time?

This is how things like this work. There are responses to the points made, and Walter didn't make any changes based on that.

It would also be possible to amend the DIP process such that if no changes are made before final review, it goes straight to formal assessment. Might not be a bad idea. It would save time too.

The document is here: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/process-reviews.md#final-review

It says:

> The purpose of the Final Review is to provide one final opportunity to examine the revisions made in response to the Community Review rounds and further refine the DIP as necessary.

So, just amend that to say "If no revisions were made in response to the Community reviews, the DIP manager may forego the Final Review stage".

-Steve

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 17:01:31 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 14:39:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> There is a difference between ignored and advice considered and not taken.
>
> But even if it was all simply not taken, I'm OK with a response "I don't care, take it or leave it" (though two of the bullets don't even have that, just nothing)... but why are we wasting our time doing a discussion thread to review the same document again?
>
> Again, the text is *identical* to the last review, so what does the DIP manager expect from us this time that would be any different than last time?
>
> We complain that newsgroup discussions go in circles. Well, this is literally called a "round" lol, but it just seems ridiculous.

Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the DIP process and let's keep this one focused on the DIP. Thanks!