I really hate to bring Java up, but I really do think it got at least one thing
right with its error system, namely that one subset of error (namely
`RuntimeException`), wouldn't be enforced by the compiler, but could optionally
be caught.
Namely, all of the following would then be valid:
// Explicitly declared to throw, but doesn't have to be caught
func runtimeThrowingFunc1() throws {
throw SubclassOfRuntimeException
}
// Not explicitly declared to throw, and doesn't have to be caught
func runtimeThrowingFunc2() {
throw SubclassOfRuntimeException
}
// Doesn't have to be caught...
runtimeThrowingFunc1()
do {
// But you can if you want
try runtimeThrowingFunc1()
} catch (SubclassOfRuntimeException) {
} catch (RuntimeException) {
}
// Doesn't have to be caught...
runtimeThrowingFunc2()
do {
// But you can if you want
try runtimeThrowingFunc2()
} catch (SubclassOfRuntimeException) {
} catch (RuntimeException) {
}
I'm not advocating explicitly for this model, it is based on Java's exception
system after all, but it think it's a place to start at the very least.
-thislooksfun (tlf)
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Kenny Leung via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It would also enable the testing of fatal conditions, which would be great.
>
> -Kenny
>
>
>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 3:57 PM, David Waite via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My interpretation is that he was advocating a future where a precondition’s
>>> failure killed less than the entire process. Instead, shut down some
>>> smaller portion like a thread, actor, or container like .Net's app domains
>>> (which for those more familiar with Javascript could be loosely compared
>>> with Web Workers).
>>>
>>> Today - if you wanted a Swift server where overflowing addition didn’t
>>> interrupt your service for multiple users, you would need to use something
>>> like a pre-fork model (with each request handled by a separate swift
>>> process)
>>>
>>> That's the difference between CLI and desktop apps where the process is
>>> providing services for a single user, and a server where it may be
>>> providing a service for thousands or millions of users.
>>
>> Agreed, I’d also really like to see this some day. It seems like a natural
>> outgrowth of the concurrency model, if it goes the direction of actors. If
>> you’re interested, I speculated on this direction in this talk:
>> http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-lmandel/lattner.pdf
>> <http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-lmandel/lattner.pdf>
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
