IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Thats the sort of logic that makes me wary of exceptions.
Wary of exceptions as they are usually implemented, that is.

I like the failure model that SNOBOL and Icon use. They're a bit like miniature exceptions: if some function or operator doesn't have a value to return, it fails. Failure simply means "it didn't work". Catching it can be done explicitly with constructs like if and while, or implicitly which produces back-tracking and goal-directed evaluation (this should be familiar to RE wizards). If it isn't handled, it propagates upwards until it is or it can't go up anymore (letting something fail for the side-effects is a known programming technique in Icon). It removes the problem of "handling it elsewhere" that try/catch can produce.

OTOH, exceptions have some features that failure doesn't. The obvious one is that different types of exceptions can be raised. Failure is just failure. There are some system functions that have to fail when there's a problem; but you have to call another function to see how and why they failed.

(A less-obvious feature of exceptions is that they have much larger scope than failure. In Icon, failure is often bounded, so that a statement with an uncaught failure doesn't cause the language to backtrack farther than it should. This is by design. Exceptions have to play games with the stack as they propagate up until something catches them.)

Whether something is an error or not in a failure model is somewhat easier to answer: is there a value to return? No? Okay, fail*. As far as I can tell from this discussion, exceptions are *just* unwieldy enough that it actually becomes an issue as to whether a function, faced with a problem, should say "that's an error - throw an exception" or "no, that's not really an error - no exception needed." :-) Ouch.

Wade.

* To be fair, even Icon doesn't follow this slavishly. There are some - mainly graphcis - functions which return &null for one condition and "" for its opposite. It turns out that in actual usage, this is more versatile, particularly as there are operators to quickly and directly turn &null or not-&null into failure.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
 
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

New Exceptions are one form of Continuation
Icon's Generators are another form. And while we're tossing around various ways to cope with what amounts to problems in program continuity (errors, exceptions, whatever), I should also mention another way that's used to handle errors. Instead of using a setjmp/longjmp type mechanism of throwing/catching exceptions, why not just send a block of code that tells the function what to do in case of error? Of course, this requires lambdas or block closures. But it sends the code down into the place where the exception is easiest to handle (i.e. it is more specific). An example of this would be something akin to Smalltalk's onUnWind: type parameters.
New Icon's generators rely on the failure model.
That's how you get back-tracking. :-)

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
 
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

     Question about exceptions - (drewk) - (31)
         Lots of discussions about that - (FuManChu) - (6)
             That only goes for one kind of exceptions! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                 What does the "checked" mean to you? - (FuManChu)
             But he's saying that you should use both - (drewk) - (3)
                 My rule of thumb is, - (Arkadiy)
                 Pick one and stick with it. - (admin)
                 You can do both (or more accurately: either) with or without - (FuManChu)
         Re: Question about exceptions - (JimWeirich) - (23)
             Nice point about responsibility, but grey areas abound - (FuManChu) - (11)
                 Re: Nice point about responsibility, but grey areas abound - (JimWeirich) - (10)
                     No, we don't - (drewk) - (9)
                         The difference is simple - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                             Problem with that - (drewk) - (4)
                                 See? Whether it is an error IS ambiguous! -NT - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                     I think I know what to do then - (drewk) - (1)
                                         Exactly -NT - (ben_tilly)
                                 Re: Problem with that - (JimWeirich)
                             Thats the sort of logic that makes me wary of exceptions. - (static) - (2)
                                 Exceptions are one form of Continuation - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                     Icon's generators rely on the failure model. - (static)
             Disabling assertions - (ChrisR) - (3)
                 That's one of the points he raised - (drewk) - (2)
                     Expense is relative - (ChrisR)
                     Re: That's one of the points he raised - (JayMehaffey)
             DbC? -NT - (drewk) - (6)
                 Design by Contract - (Yendor) - (5)
                     Not the same thing. - (admin) - (4)
                         That's not strictly Eiffel; - (jake123) - (3)
                             It's built into Eiffel - (admin)
                             It is DESIGN by Contract after all - (JimWeirich) - (1)
                                 As you say - (jake123)

I swear it’s their damn business model.
54 ms