Sean, thanks for your feedback! Instance of Throwable is fail anyway and I can't imagine a situation when it's not. **exception-base-class** only sets behavior of *call* - what we should catch and what will be thrown. Probably naming is kinda ambiguous here and **exception-base-class** should be called **catch-from* *to make its purpose more clear without reading docstring.
пятница, 9 ноября 2018 г., 8:05:18 UTC+2 пользователь Sean Corfield написал: > > Alex, I’m curious, should this > https://github.com/dawcs/flow/blob/master/src/dawcs/flow.clj#L53 use * > *exception-base-class** rather than Throwable directly? > > > > It looks very interesting and elegant – I’ll probably give this a test > drive next week! > > > > Sean Corfield -- (970) FOR-SEAN -- (904) 302-SEAN > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* clo...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> <clo...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>> on behalf of alex <fmn...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 7, 2018 2:05:28 PM > *To:* Clojure > *Subject:* Re: An Error spec? > > How about using exception instances as errors? That plays pretty nicely > with ex-info and (try ... (catch Exception e e)). I've built > https://github.com/dawcs/flow on top of that approach and that seems > like pretty good abstraction. Despite I'm not sure about CLJS. > Anomalies are also great and you may check out > https://github.com/dawcs/anomalies-tools for some tooling around it. But > you may still need a bridge to convert exceptions caught from 3rd-party > java libs into anomalies structure. And despite Cognitect roots, it doesn't > feel like "official standard". > > пятница, 26 октября 2018 г., 4:46:54 UTC+3 пользователь Didier написал: >> >> I've started to see a pattern in my spec like this: >> >> (s/or :success string? >> :error ::error) >> >> And I've been tempted to create my own spec macro for this. But I also >> thought, maybe Spec itself should have such a spec. >> >> (s/error <success-spec> <error-spec>) >> >> What do people think? >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
