Re: Question about adding !function_identifier

> On 4 Apr 2019, at 03:29, M. W. Moe <mo.mu.wss@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks! > >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:24 PM G. P. B. <george.banyard@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I don't really see the point of it as you self said this wouldn't add a >> runtime check, so in what is it different to a comment? >> More so reusing ! for this will, in my opinion, just lead to confusion as >> people will think it negates the function, this is what >> I would expect it to do at first glance. >> Also comparing it to the nullable question mark is quite bizarre I find, >> why not choose the ampersand for references instead? >> At least it would cover the same "scope", as types have nothing to do with >> how a function behaves. >> >> Best regards >> >> George P. Banyard >> Quite honestly knowing that a function “throws” but not *what* it throws, is useless. Now if it were a proposal to add *runtime checked* throws FooException, BarTypeError or similar, I could get behind.