3 ms·
You are just answering to the style of my question, while you perfectly understood the meaning and avoided to provide the answer. Basically this feature is her
by sametmax 10y ago
You are just answering to the style of my question, while you perfectly understood the meaning and avoided to provide the answer.
Basically this feature is here to provide an easy propagation of errors, something an exception system does for you for free.
"?" exist because the current error handling make it inconvenient to propagate errors, and is a workaround to make it less of a pain.
It's alright. There is no shame in it. Just say so, don't try to talk your way out of it.
- Manishearth 10y ago> something an exception system does for you for free. That's the point, it doesn't, you pay for the exception system and the implicitness that comes with it. Your comment portrays exceptions as the default that monadic errors are playing catch-up with. I could easily do the reverse. > is a workaround to make it less of a pain. You say workaround, I say feature. Ultimately, monadic errors and exceptions have tradeoffs. Like I said, given any tradeoff between feature A and feature B, you can always say "subfeature X of A exists because we don't have B". It's not a meaningful thing to say. I didn't avoid an answer, I genuinely think that your comment has no substance to it because it pretends that exceptions are a "default" system.