On 18 Oct 2016, at 14:24, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Daniel Bünzli <daniel.buen...@erratique.ch> 
> wrote:
> I think you should transform your errors according to your level of 
> abstraction as much as you do with your values.
> That's a good goal.
> Also using inclusion (by tagging an error subset) rather than union for 
> errors reported by subsystems allows you to work with a constant set of 
> variants at a given abstraction level which lessens the problems.
> I've tried that, and only problem was I ended up with rather big types. 
> Appropriate naming could get around that, at least in the mli's. Crazy types 
> might still get printed out by utop, but that doesn't bother me too much.

Yeah, the toplevel printing can be dealt with by general improvements to OCaml 
error handling.  We probably shouldn't let the quality of OCaml's existing 
error message printing guide the API design here, but rather work on the 
co-evolution of the language and MirageOS libraries to get any such issues 
fixed in the longer term upstream.


MirageOS-devel mailing list

Reply via email to