I think we should emulate the behavior of regular map as much as possible. JW
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Martin Logan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > -- 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.
