Thanks Joey.
> you will handle the error case, and either come up with a sensible > default, or tell your program to display some error message, or do > something else to properly handle the error. > You mean, do exactly like I showed in the java newbie example? What would be considered an anti-pattern in java? How is this a good thing? It seems like a step backwards. Often there is no way to "handle" the error. There is no sensible default. It's a programmer error and throwing an exception is the most logical thing to do. Unless I am missing some key concept, this will make your programs less reliable. True, there will be no runtime exception. But there will be bugs. And more noise. Again, I will admit that I am new to Elm. And may be missing something. I totally get the whole "maybe" thing. And I see the advantage of that. But, if I am not mistaken, we are back to C in the sense of "no throw"? C#, Java, JavaScript, and Scala have the keyword throw. VisualBasic, Python, Ruby, F# and Clojure have raise. Is there no throw/raise in Elm? We must use "return" for both standard return and error return. Is that correct? I'm not trying to be a troll. There are lots of things I love about Elm. I'm just trying to understand the language. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
