Browse thread
[OSR] Exceptionless error management
-
Bünzli_Daniel
- David Teller
-
David Teller
-
tab@s...
-
Bünzli_Daniel
- tab@s...
- Frédéric_van_der_Plancke
- michaelgrunewald@y...
- David Teller
-
Bünzli_Daniel
-
tab@s...
- David Teller
- Till Varoquaux
[
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: | Frédéric_van_der_Plancke <fvdp@d...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Exceptionless error management |
Bünzli Daniel wrote: > Still I think this is a little bit sad. Using polymorphic variants > isn't that bad at all as long as we just use the following _closed_ > type [ `Value of ... | `Error of ... ]. This would allow us to move > forward despite that fact that Pervasives is frozen (and no I'm not > interested in forking it). But Pervasives is not *that* frozen. If I understand things well, the main concern of Inria is having to maintain the would-be additions and changes to Pervasives. An Ok | Error variant doesn't look like it will entail heavy maintenance charges. So they may accept to add it. (I don't think there are backwards-compatibility problems either as user-defined Ok|Error would hide a Pervasives-defined one in all contexts I can think of.) Frédéric