Guys, pmap needs to pass through exceptions. The implementation will
be fairly straightforward, anyone against this?
In the do_f function we have the line. I would change this line to
something like
Parent ! {self(), {error, ErrType, Error}}
Parent ! {self(), {'$exception$', ErrType, Error}}
This would be to sufficiently distinguish an exception from a passed
back error. Right now we autoconvert exceptions into errors which does
not look quite correct to me. There may be caveats to passing back the
exception though and that is what I am asking you to think on. Anyhow,
If this response above comes back into
wait(Parent, Child, Timeout) ->
receive
{Child, Ret} ->
Parent ! {self(), Ret}
which would then be recognized there and passed back to Parent. When
Parent receives an exception message it would rethrow it. Anyone
wishing to collect all responses would need to catch exceptions at an
application level. Exceptions would serve to short circuit the
execution of any map functions in this way.
Cheers,
Martin
--
Martin Logan
Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan
http://twitter.com/martinjlogan
http://erlware.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"erlware-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
