about the name, what about changing from 'Nothing' to 'None'? // Like that in python: True, False, None
- Jie On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:27 PM, John Sirois <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Benjamin Hindman <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> It should not be easier via C++11, no. >> > > He's alive! No tree parts sticking out? > > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Is going the void route gonna be easier with c++11? If yes, I would >> prefer >> > void over Nothing. >> > >> > @vinodkone >> > Sent from my mobile >> > >> > On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:15 PM, "Benjamin Hindman" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Sept. 11, 2012, 9:32 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: >> > >>> This definitely needs to get done, so I'm stoked you took it on! >> > However, this is the kind of thing I think merits some discussion >> (before >> > unnecessary work is done ... sorry). In particular, I had created >> > 'Try<void>' some time ago for this exact reason, but didn't use it after >> > thinking we might want to use 'Try<Nothing>' instead. Here were the >> pros I >> > saw to using 'Try<void>': >> > >>> >> > >>> + It captures the "void" return type well. ;) >> > >>> + We can eliminate 'Try<void>::get' so that people can't even >> attempt >> > to get something that doesn't exist (although, a 'get' on a Try<Nothing> >> > returns an object that you can't really do anything with, so it's very >> > harmless). >> > >>> >> > >>> However, there were also cons: >> > >>> >> > >>> - The 'Try<void>' implementation is mostly duplicated code. >> > >>> - You have to do 'return Try<void>::some();' which doesn't read as >> > nice as it could (at least, not as nice as 'return Nothing();'). >> > >>> - To do the same thing for Result and Future will require lots of >> > duplicated code, which is at least a non-starter for Future and thus >> we'll >> > probably always be using Future<Nothing> for asynchronous cases (and it >> > seems much cleaner to be consistent). >> > >>> >> > >>> For these reasons, I was slightly more inclined towards >> > 'Try<Nothing>'. Naturally, I'd love to hear others thoughts! >> > >> >> > >> Ben Mahler wrote: >> > >> You've brought up some good points, I would agree with killing >> > Try<void> entirely and switching this to do Try<Nothing> instead, does >> that >> > sound good? >> > >> >> > >> What I originally wanted was just non-templatized Try instead of >> > Try<void>, but again that requires the duplicated code and likely >> returning >> > a messy Try::some() rather than Nothing(). >> > > >> > > Well, Try<Nothing> is my vote, so if nobody else has any input, I say >> go >> > for it. >> > > >> > > >> > > - Benjamin >> > > >> > > >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------- >> > > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >> > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/7001/#review11357 >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------- >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sept. 11, 2012, 5:05 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: >> > >> >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >> > >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/7001/ >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >> > >> (Updated Sept. 11, 2012, 5:05 p.m.) >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Jie Yu. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Description >> > >> ------- >> > >> >> > >> We unnecessarily have Try<bool>s all over the place, these are >> > tri-state: {error, some:true, some:false}. It seems most cases, we never >> > use {some:false} in the function or the caller. >> > >> >> > >> So, this restores some sanity to use two-state Try<void>s: {error, >> some} >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Diffs >> > >> ----- >> > >> >> > >> src/linux/cgroups.hpp 1a3cdc2 >> > >> src/linux/cgroups.cpp 53d611f >> > >> src/linux/fs.hpp 31a6100 >> > >> src/linux/fs.cpp 744aea6 >> > >> src/logging/logging.cpp d6d31ec >> > >> src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.hpp 00255b5 >> > >> src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp 8a121e0 >> > >> src/slave/gc.hpp 3760d09 >> > >> src/slave/gc.cpp 5212a41 >> > >> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp c0576bd >> > >> src/slave/slave.cpp 4ea1db1 >> > >> src/tests/cgroups_tests.cpp fbaa046 >> > >> src/tests/configurator_tests.cpp 8baed76 >> > >> src/tests/files_tests.cpp 6ef2004 >> > >> src/tests/stout_tests.cpp f690fac >> > >> src/tests/zookeeper_server.hpp 4f34910 >> > >> src/webui/webui.cpp d4f2ab9 >> > >> third_party/libprocess/include/stout/os.hpp 602db1f >> > >> third_party/libprocess/src/process.cpp 2d2b56c >> > >> >> > >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7001/diff/ >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Testing >> > >> ------- >> > >> >> > >> osx 10.7 gcc 4.2.1 >> > >> redhat Red Hat 4.1.2-48 gcc 4.1.2 >> > >> >> > >> make >> > >> make check >> > >> >> > >> note that SampleFrameworks.PythonFramework is consistently failing on >> > red hat, unrelated to this change >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, >> > >> >> > >> Ben Mahler >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > John Sirois > 303-512-3301 > > > > > >
