Colleagues, IMHO:

If "assert" catch "fundamental programmers errors" - it should hang programm immediately with and without "-release".

If "assert" catch not "too fundamental" errors - assert(0) should emit "Error" in both cases.

Third option - assert(0) - it's a "special case" and halt program in both cases.

But there should't be so that in one case the "fundamental error" and the other "not fundamental".

It's my opinion.

WBR,
    Fyodor.

On Saturday, 7 November 2015 at 21:00:58 UTC, Fyodor Ustinov wrote:
> We do not have way to in "scope(failure)" or "scope(exit)" detect - it's "assert" or "throw".

Indeed. But the point is that _all_ Errors (of which AssertError is one example) are throwable from `nothrow` functions, and as such might not unwind the stack as you would expect.

 — David

On Saturday, 7 November 2015 at 22:26:53 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 November 2015 at 21:00:58 UTC, Fyodor Ustinov wrote:
>> We do not have way to in "scope(failure)" or "scope(exit)" detect - it's "assert" or "throw".
>
> Indeed. But the point is that _all_ Errors (of which AssertError is one example) are throwable from `nothrow` functions, and as such might not unwind the stack as you would expect.
>
>  — David

Dumb question, does nothrow affect codegen?

On Sunday, 8 November 2015 at 02:51:33 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 November 2015 at 22:26:53 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Saturday, 7 November 2015 at 21:00:58 UTC, Fyodor Ustinov wrote:
>>> We do not have way to in "scope(failure)" or "scope(exit)" detect - it's "assert" or "throw".
>>
>> Indeed. But the point is that _all_ Errors (of which AssertError is one example) are throwable from `nothrow` functions, and as such might not unwind the stack as you would expect.
>>
>>  — David
>
> Dumb question, does nothrow affect codegen?

I don't know if it does right now, but in the future with things like RC I'd imagine it definitely would (ARC is cheaper if you can guarantee no exceptions). I feel like there is some cases right now where it does, but I don't know about that.

On Sunday, 8 November 2015 at 02:51:33 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
> Dumb question, does nothrow affect codegen?

I'd be very surprised if it didn't. But even if it doesn't currently affect codegen, it likely will at some point in the future.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Saturday, 7 November 2015 at 21:24:02 UTC, Fyodor Ustinov wrote:
> Colleagues, IMHO:
>
> If "assert" catch "fundamental programmers errors" - it should hang programm immediately with and without "-release".
>
> If "assert" catch not "too fundamental" errors - assert(0) should emit "Error" in both cases.
>
> Third option - assert(0) - it's a "special case" and halt program in both cases.
>
> But there should't be so that in one case the "fundamental error" and the other "not fundamental".
>
> It's my opinion.
>
> WBR,
>     Fyodor.

I strongly disagree. Without `-release`, the job of "fundamental programmers errors" is not to stop the program and prevent farther corruption(which is pointless - how do you know executing the `scope(exit)` and `scope(failure)` blocks will increase the corruption? Maybe they'll reduce it?), because when you are developing you shouldn't work with the only copies of important data files. Without `-release`, the role of `assert`s(and `Error`s in general) is the help the programmer fix these bugs.

When I have a "fundamental programmer error" in my code, I prefer to get a stack trace from the exception mechanism than to find a core dump(that was hopefully generated) and rely on GDB's excellent support for D to analyze it.

Besides, there are some very specific cases where it's acceptable to catch `Error`s - one of them is when you have a logging mechanism that can log these errors in a way/place that's easier for you to read - and then of course re-throws them. Halting the program on errors prevents this logging mechanism from doing it's thing.