Re: Question on names of errors in error-kit
Yeah. Personally, I don't think they should stand out any more than a
struct basis needs to stand out.
(defstruct person :fname :lname)
(struct person Bob Joe)
(deferror parse-error {...})
(raise parse-error ...)
Defined errors are just variables in a namespace, whose siblings
include the namespace's functions, structs, and so on. I think that as
long as error-kit is really young and *error*, etc. aren't being bound
anymore, you might as well remove the asterisks for consistent style
with the rest of Clojure, or else the asterisk's meaning is diluted.
(As for continue, Chouser, I'm sure I'll use it eventually--bind-
continue especially.)
On Mar 3, 9:30 pm, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
capitals seems pretty weird for a Lisp. Now that I think about it, perhaps
foo-error isn't so bad.
David
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Chouser chou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I appreciate that they stand out. Again, this is similar to the
constants
conversation earlier, visually marking the intended use is a good habit,
IMHO. Of course this doesn't mean that error-kit should define the base
error this way, but I intend to keep on wrapping my errors in earmuffs :)
Since earmuffs already mean something different, perhaps there's
something else that would work? Maybe capitals, because they're a
kind of type name? Error, Odd-Number-Error?
--Chouser
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Clojure group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Question on names of errors in error-kit
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:34 AM, samppi rbysam...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah. Personally, I don't think they should stand out any more than a struct basis needs to stand out. SVN rev 565 has '*error*' renamed to 'error', and the example updated. This is a breaking change if you were using the name '*error*' directly. --Chouser --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Question on names of errors in error-kit
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM, samppi rbysam...@gmail.com wrote: Small questions on error-kit—which I love and think that all clojure- contrib libraries should use—why do defined errors such as *error*, *number-error*, etc. have names surrounded by asterisks? Thanks for the endorsement! Have you used continue or bind-continue yet? These are the features I'm less certain about. Your question is a very good one. Early versions actually rebound the error Vars, so I named them appropriately. Of course that's not exactly how it works anymore, but I grew accustomed to how they look with earmuffs, and didn't change them. I'm hesitant to remove them because I like how they stand out in the code. Perhaps it's not really necessary, or perhaps there's a better naming convention we could use? Any thoughts? --Chouser --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Question on names of errors in error-kit
I appreciate that they stand out. Again, this is similar to the constants conversation earlier, visually marking the intended use is a good habit, IMHO. Of course this doesn't mean that error-kit should define the base error this way, but I intend to keep on wrapping my errors in earmuffs :) David On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Chouser chou...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM, samppi rbysam...@gmail.com wrote: Small questions on error-kit—which I love and think that all clojure- contrib libraries should use—why do defined errors such as *error*, *number-error*, etc. have names surrounded by asterisks? Thanks for the endorsement! Have you used continue or bind-continue yet? These are the features I'm less certain about. Your question is a very good one. Early versions actually rebound the error Vars, so I named them appropriately. Of course that's not exactly how it works anymore, but I grew accustomed to how they look with earmuffs, and didn't change them. I'm hesitant to remove them because I like how they stand out in the code. Perhaps it's not really necessary, or perhaps there's a better naming convention we could use? Any thoughts? --Chouser --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Question on names of errors in error-kit
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate that they stand out. Again, this is similar to the constants conversation earlier, visually marking the intended use is a good habit, IMHO. Of course this doesn't mean that error-kit should define the base error this way, but I intend to keep on wrapping my errors in earmuffs :) Since earmuffs already mean something different, perhaps there's something else that would work? Maybe capitals, because they're a kind of type name? Error, Odd-Number-Error? --Chouser --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Question on names of errors in error-kit
capitals seems pretty weird for a Lisp. Now that I think about it, perhaps foo-error isn't so bad. David On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Chouser chou...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate that they stand out. Again, this is similar to the constants conversation earlier, visually marking the intended use is a good habit, IMHO. Of course this doesn't mean that error-kit should define the base error this way, but I intend to keep on wrapping my errors in earmuffs :) Since earmuffs already mean something different, perhaps there's something else that would work? Maybe capitals, because they're a kind of type name? Error, Odd-Number-Error? --Chouser --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
