Thanks Joey.
> you will handle the error case, and either come up with a sensible > default, or tell your program to display some error message, or do > something else to properly handle the error. > You mean, do exactly like I showed in the java newbie example? What would be considered an anti-pattern in java? How is this a good thing? It seems like a step backwards. Often there is no way to "handle" the error. There is no sensible default. It's a programmer error and throwing an exception is the most logical thing to do. Unless I am missing some key concept, this will make your programs less reliable. True, there will be no runtime exception. But there will be bugs. And more noise. Again, I will admit that I am new to Elm. And may be missing something. I totally get the whole "maybe" thing. And I see the advantage of that. But, if I am not mistaken, we are back to C in the sense of "no throw"? C#, Java, JavaScript, and Scala have the keyword throw. VisualBasic, Python, Ruby, F# and Clojure have raise. Is there no throw/raise in Elm? We must use "return" for both standard return and error return. Is that correct? I'm not trying to be a troll. There are lots of things I love about Elm. I'm just trying to understand the language. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
