On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> + case catch Fun(Doc, Req) of
>> + true -> true;
>> + false -> false;
>> + {'EXIT', Error} -> ?LOG_ERROR("~p", [Error])
>> + end
>
> The O'Reilly book _Erlang Programming_ suggests that catch expressions
> (the older form before try...catch came out) are not as elegant as
> try...catch.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Qr_WuvfTSpEC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&source=bl&ots=aK-DfyxREb&sig=LA1Fi-lSKEPJNvMFdp0kXzOxDg8&hl=en&ei=W0T7TJLpMY_QrQffr4HBCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> Also Joe Armstrong's book states that you lose a lot of precision
> analyzing the cause of an error.
>
> FYI.
>
> --
> Jason Smith
> CouchOne Hosting
>
I'm not sure about the book's definition of elegant, but:
case (catch Fun()) of
Val1 -> foo;
Val2 -> bar;
{Error, Reason} -> other
end
Seems more readable than:
try
case Fun() of
Val1 -> foo;
Val2 -> bar
end
catch
throw:{Error, Reason} -> other
end
Its true that you end up collapsing the Error and Response domains
into a single namespace, but in general, most things don't look like
errors.
