Browse thread
Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included
[
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: | 2008-11-21 (07:40) |
From: | Daniel_Bünzli <daniel.buenzli@e...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Stability of exceptions |
Le 21 nov. 08 à 03:56, Eliot Handelman a écrit : > In order to catch array access violations, Don't do that. This was already raised on the list but I cannot find the reference anymore. One argument that comes to mind is if one day you need optimal performance you won't be able to compile with - unsafe. Invalid_argument exceptions are programming errors and usually you should not try to catch them [1]. > My problem is not confined to this particular case I agree, the problem also exists with Failure and I already encountered it (full Buffer). In that case the safest route is to wrap with a handler the greatest body of code that you know can only raise Failure because of the particular condition you try to catch and raise your own exception on any Failure (see for example the module Buffer at the very end of this file [2]). > Would it not be better for Ocaml to have built-in exceptions (not > string literals) for things of this importance? Of course it would. Best, Daniel [1] http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2007/10/e6683fd700e87f214c757ecaaa4f8ede.fr.html [2] http://erratique.ch/software/xmlm/repo/src/xmlm.ml