Richard Jones <r...@annexia.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 06:15:05PM +0200, Hans Ole Rafaelsen wrote:
>> What experience does people have to using alternatives to exceptions, such
>> as option types or exception monads? Does use of third part libraries that
>> still throws exceptions make such approaches hard to use? Performance wise
>> it seems to be comparable to catching exceptions or matching for options, so
>> I guess the difference be might a question of programming style?
>
> Personally I've found that you should only throw those exceptions
> which can be caught in a single place in the program. By this I mean
> that an exception such as Not_found shouldn't be thrown, and instead
> it would be better to use an option type (for stdlib functions which
> throw Not_found, you have to be _very_ careful that the exception
> cannot "escape").
Which needlessly complicates your code when it never happens.
Imho a good module should provide both an exception and option based
interface to fit the circumstances and programming style.
> However if the exception is, say, an I/O error reading a disk file,
> these should be thrown, and caught somewhere central where you can
> display an error message to the user (for GUI programs) or abort the
> current transaction (for server programs). Recovering from such
> exceptions properly is still tricky though. Since OCaml lacks
> 'finally', you either have to use a 'finally' impl from a library, or
> modify your code to not need it (eg. turning calls to 'open_in' and
> 'open_out' into a kind of continuation-passing style). Or for small
> programs, abort the program and don't deal with recovery at all.
>
> All in all, this is not ideal for writing correct programs. Some sort
> of exception analysis would be most welcome.
It would be nice if the possible exceptions of a function would be part
of the type. E.g.
let f1 () = raise Not_found
val f1 : unit -> 'a [ Not_found ]
let f2 () = try f1 () with Not_found -> ()
val f2 : unit -> unit
let f3 f = try f () with Not_found -> ()
val f3: (unit -> 'a [< Not_found | 'B ]) -> 'a [ 'B ]
and so on.
Someone would have to write a new type system for that though.
MfG
Goswin
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
