Re: [Bro-Dev] [Proposal] Language extensions for better Broker support

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Robin Sommer wrote: > > I think that looks pretty good. But where's that Error type defined? > Is it a new global type that Bro predefines for everybody to use? Then > we'd either need to limit the type of errors to a small predefined > set, or

Re: [Bro-Dev] [Proposal] Language extensions for better Broker support

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Matthias Vallentin wrote: > >>> local r = put(store, key, test(lookup(store, key))); > > It's up to the user to check the result variable (here: r) and decide > what to do: abort, retry, continue, or report an error. The thing that got me

Re: [Bro-Dev] [Proposal] Language extensions for better Broker support

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 09:39 -0500, you wrote: > I like that too. Having nicely generalized error handling in Bro > would be such a huge benefit for script authors. So let's think that through. Let's say we did an Error enum that can reflect various error conditions, something like this:

Re: [Bro-Dev] [Proposal] Language extensions for better Broker support

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 14:44 +, you wrote: > Would that mean you wouldn't be able to return a bool and check for > errors at the same time? No, it would always return an opaque ("opaque of Broker::Data" in this case). If you used that in a boolean context, it would evaluate to the error

Re: [Bro-Dev] [Proposal] Language extensions for better Broker support

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Robin Sommer wrote: > > My draft proposal extends > opaque types to support conversion to boolean to allow for more > elegant error checks. Would that mean you wouldn't be able to return a bool and check for errors at the same time? -- - Justin

Re: [Bro-Dev] [Proposal] Language extensions for better Broker support

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Matthias Vallentin wrote: > >> Maybe the conversion to bool that I proposed originally should really >> be a conversion to a dedicated error type, so that one can >> differentiate what happened. > > I like that. I like that too. Having