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

===================================
**THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION THREAD**

Posts in this thread must adhere to the feedback thread rules outlined in the Reviewer Guidelines (and listed at the bottom of this post).

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

That document also provides guidelines on contributing feedback to a DIP review. Please read it before posting here. If you would like to discuss this DIP, please do so in the discussion thread:

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

==================================

You can find DIP 1029 here:

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

The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on April 8, or when I make a post declaring it complete. Feedback posted to this thread after that point may be ignored.

At the end of the Final Review, the DIP will be forwarded to the language maintainers for Formal Assessment.

==================================
Posts in this thread that do not adhere to the following rules will be deleted at the DIP author's discretion:

* All posts must be a direct reply to the DIP manager's initial post, with only two exceptions:

    - Any commenter may reply to their own posts to retract feedback contained in the original post

    - The DIP author may (and is encouraged to) reply to any feedback solely to acknowledge the feedback with agreement or disagreement (preferably with supporting reasons in the latter case)

* Feedback must be actionable, i.e., there must be some action the DIP author can choose to take in response to the feedback, such as changing details, adding new information, or even retracting the proposal.

* Feedback related to the merits of the proposal rather than to the contents of the DIP (e.g., "I'm against this DIP.") is allowed in Community Review (not Final Review), but must be backed by supporting arguments (e.g., "I'm against this DIP because..."). The supporting arguments must be reasonable. Obviously frivolous arguments waste everyone's time.

* Feedback should be clear and concise, preferably listed as bullet points (those who take the time to do an in-depth review and provide feedback in the form of answers to the questions in this document will receive much gratitude). Information irrelevant to the DIP or is not provided in service of clarifying the feedback is unwelcome.

On Friday, 17 April 2020 at 11:30:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> This is the feedback thread for the Final Review of DIP 1029, "Add throw as Function Attribute".
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/9db80ddadcf5a220958ddcfec14b9c71cdb43d1c/DIPs/DIP1029.md
>

I like it, but would prefer:
throw!bool

1) makes meta-programming easier
2) would allow deprecating nothrow (in very long term)
3) there is precedence in C++ 'noexcept(expression)'
(even if they made the wrong choice with using the negated specifier)

Any arguments against?

As mentioned by Dennis here: https://forum.dlang.org/post/fgszmctemzfkjniiibrx@forum.dlang.org

throw should be added to StorageClass, otherwise there is an inconsistency between nothrow and throw.

-Steve

On 4/17/2020 6:03 AM, Tove wrote:
> I like it, but would prefer:
> throw!bool
> 
> 1) makes meta-programming easier
> 2) would allow deprecating nothrow (in very long term)
> 3) there is precedence in C++ 'noexcept(expression)'
> (even if they made the wrong choice with using the negated specifier)
> 
> Any arguments against?

throw!bool implies it is throwing a bool. Besides, with throw/nothrow we already have the full functionality.

On 4/17/2020 7:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> As mentioned by Dennis here: https://forum.dlang.org/post/fgszmctemzfkjniiibrx@forum.dlang.org
> 
> throw should be added to StorageClass, otherwise there is an inconsistency between nothrow and throw.

You're right:

https://dlang.org/spec/declaration.html#StorageClass