Hi Gabriele,
> RPT> dns-failure
> RPT> connect-failure
>
> Why not using only one function for all errors?
I do not like to handle errors in rebol. I must disarm the error, check the
right field, know what code/type/id/arg I must find to understand what kind of
error is. Some errors are
Hi Romano,
On Tuesday, March 9, 2004, 7:31:35 PM, you wrote:
RPT> dns-failure
RPT> connect-failure
Why not using only one function for all errors?
And, I think the connect event is useful, as you may want to start
sending data when the connection is established and not before
(imag
Hi Anton,
> What were you thinking resolve* would be for ?
Resolve can be ignored, but resolve can fail, like connect.
I am asking it all that errors are a good thing. I am thinking to use words
instead:
dns-failure
connect-failure
errors could be used only for i/o errors
This makes
Hi Andreas,
> ; default dispatcher
> handle: func [ port [port!] state [word! error!] ] [
> either error? state [
> on-error port state
> ] [
> switch state [
> connect [ on-connect port ]
> close [ on-close
Thursday, March 4, 2004, 4:33:29 PM, Romano wrote:
> I should like to define a common (standard) interface for async
> protocols.
> I proposed some time ago an object! style, like the View feel,
> instead of the awake function.
> What do you think?
Sorry if that's missing the point, but I'm c
Hi Anton,
On Monday, March 8, 2004, 12:12:57 PM, you wrote:
AR> Hang on, I'm not sure I like this. Isn't the convention
AR> to add an asterisk to the word when it refers to the default
AR> built-in word? ie. write* = system/words/write
The simplest way is the opposite (like Romano suggests); t
Hi Romano,
> Hi Anton,
>
> > The advantage of that over a single function, I suppose,
> > is so that you can derive from a standard base
> > object (or choose from several easy-to-use example objects),
> > with the four functions [connect read write close] inside.
> >
> > I would be happy with th
Hi Anton,
> The advantage of that over a single function, I suppose,
> is so that you can derive from a standard base
> object (or choose from several easy-to-use example objects),
> with the four functions [connect read write close] inside.
>
> I would be happy with that, if that was what you we
The advantage of that over a single function, I suppose,
is so that you can derive from a standard base
object (or choose from several easy-to-use example objects),
with the four functions [connect read write close] inside.
I would be happy with that, if that was what you were thinking.
Also, I
