David's proposal looks good enough for me. With regards to Matthew's worry of cluttering the code with conversion I'd like to remark that this conversion code should only live on the border of your API (the facade), so it should probably not be too invasive to your business logic.
-Thorsten > Am 22.12.2015 um 20:08 schrieb Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <[email protected]>: > > >>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:09 PM, David Owens II <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to make it safe. You had to use >>> fatalError in a default case to make it work. An alternative would have >>> been to include an ‘UnknownError’ case in ‘PublishedError’. Neither is not >>> an acceptable solution IMO. >> >> I need the fatalError() because the sample is a working example in Swift >> today. If we had typed errors, this would simply work: >> >> static func from<T>(@autoclosure fn: () throws InternalError -> T) throws >> PublishedError -> T { >> do { >> return try fn() >> } >> catch InternalError.Internal(let value) { >> throw PublishedError.Converted(value: value) >> } >> } >> >> This states that the only closure accepted is one that throws an >> InternalError. > > Ok, so you suggest writing a specific overload for each combination of error > types that are convertible. Got it. Not sure why I didn’t think of > overloads. I was too focused on a general try function dispatching to an > initializer. > > That is indeed safe and I can live with it. Thanks for taking the time to > work through these examples with me and help to identify patterns that > address my concerns! > > I still find it unfortunate that this is in the realm of a pattern though. > IMO it would be much better if it was part of the common Swift vocabulary, > either as a language feature or a library function but that isn’t possible as > a generic implementation isn’t possible. > >> >>> This top level `from` example also brings up a couple of points that I >>> don’t recall being addressed in your proposal. Specifically, the >>> interaction of typed errors with generics and type inferrence. >> >> I call out in the proposal that errors work with generics no differently >> than other types. > > Great, I must have missed that. > >> >>> I still consider this to be an unresolved concern. I would like to have a >>> safe way to perform error conversion during propagation without cluttering >>> up my control flow and seriously degrading readability. This is a problem >>> that can and has been solved in other languages. IMO it is should be >>> considered an essential element of a proposal introducing typed errors. >> >> When Swift has a macro as powerful as Rust, then this is a solved problem as >> well. However, Swift isn’t there yet. > > I would prefer a solution to this that didn’t require macros which would fit > better in Swift. This feature is buried in the `try!` macro in Rust as Rust > doesn’t have built-in language level error handling support. > > Swift already has `try` built into the language. IMO it would be better to > have it handled by the built-in language level error handling support in > Swift. That seems like the more “Swifty” approach. We could have a Swift > macro `tryAndConvert` or something, but that seems inelegant. > > We’ve gone back and forth on this quite a bit but nobody else has chimed in. > I’m curious to hear what others thing. I would love it if any lurkers would > jump in and comment! > > Matthew > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
