Browse thread
Today's inflamatory opinion: exceptions are bad
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | malc <av1474@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Today's inflamatory opinion: exceptions are bad |
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Brian Hurt wrote:
>
> I think I've come to the conclusion that exceptions are bad.
>
> In Ocaml, they're useless in many cases, and in most cases wrong. Avoiding
> them generally makes for better code. There are two vague types of
> exceptions- those the program can, and probably should- handle, and those
> that the program can't, and probably should even try to, handle.
>
> For the former, returning a variant type ('a option if nothing else) is a
> better idea, for (at least) two reasons. One, the type system enforces the
> requirement to actually handle the error, at the location the return value of
> the function is desired. Want the result? Handle the errors. Which allow a
> function to "pass along" an error if it wants to. So you could still write
> functions like:
[..snip..]
Guess there's third type, code might detect catastrophic failure
during the run of custom block finalizer, in which case, should there
be a need for a cleanup actions, raising an exception might be the
only choice, however i couldn't say offhand whether OCaml allows to
raise exceptions in this context at all.
--
vale