> On Jun 24, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Mark Waddingham <m...@livecode.com> wrote: > > From an error handling point of view, these present two entirely different > cases. > > For operations which you should always expect to succeed *or* can guarantee > will succeed by a preceding check in code, the correct error approach is to > throw. > > For operations which could fail and you cannot 'precheck' for failure, the > correct error approach is to set the result.
I would be pleased to adapt to whatever changes a documented simplifying philosophy of errors brings about, both in my use of LiveCode and (if accepted by others) in how my libraries present errors. (Internal to my libraries, I take the style that is cleanest and simplest for my thinking. At the interface, between throw and set-the-result, I'm currently driven by what the customer is familiar with, and I sometimes supply both. I also very often use tenacious errorless machinery that simply has a state of stalled progress. And I use a couple other styles.) _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
