On 09/11/18 17:19, Fred Hebert wrote:
are you arguing in favor of GOTO instead of an operator?
i hope it was a temporary brownout of your mind.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:09 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:i'm sorry to interrupt, but all you REALLY NEED is to tweak the "try..catch" a little bit, in a manner that the catch clause receives and returns more comprehensible values, the values that are clearly linked with the failed expressions and human readable. you do not need a new messy CRYPTIC operator. try {ok, Result} = foo(...) , {ok, _} = foo2(...) catch {somehow_identify_which_line_failed, unobscured_the_rightside_value} This here is exactly the problem -- you can't somehow identify which line failed unobscured with the right value. [irrelevant technicalities skipped] so this problem should be solved. exactly this problem. and another operator is not a solution. option 1: you introduce labels in the try's context try a: {ok, Result} = foo() , b: {ok, R} = foo2() catch {a, Error_Code, Actual_Return_Value} -> ... ; {b, _} -> ... end
_______________________________________________ eeps mailing list [email protected] http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/eeps
