3 ms·

Let me introduce you to the concept of ErrorKind in Rust (i.e. in the IO module of the std): https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/io/enum.ErrorKind.html https://doc.ru

by Lev1a 8y ago

Let me introduce you to the concept of ErrorKind in Rust (i.e. in the IO module of the std): https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/io/enum.ErrorKind.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/io/enum.ErrorKind.html There is also the "failure" crate which has patterns for the kind of thing you mentioned: https://boats.gitlab.io/failure/error-errorkind.html https://boats.gitlab.io/failure/error-errorkind.html https://boats.gitlab.io/failure/custom-fail.html https://boats.gitlab.io/failure/custom-fail.html

gmfawcett 8y ago
I don't believe that either ErrorKind or 'failure' gives the same degree of automated enumeration and checking that Zig provides. I'm not a Zig apologist... I just think you should read through the Zig documentation and examine the differences for yourself. https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Errors https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Errors https://ziglang.org/download/0.2.0/release-notes.html https://ziglang.org/download/0.2.0/release-notes.html (see "Error Sets")
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bpicolo 8y ago
  If I'm understanding correctly, you can use enums in rust to recreate the same, though it would be slightly more verbose. enum MyErrorSet { NotFound(ErrorKind), SomethingElse(ErrorKind), } If you don't care about propagating the original ErrorKind then that's just enum MyErrorSet { NotFound, SomethingElse }
  - gmfawcett 8y ago
    Yes, I think you're right. But the burden for generating and maintaining the enums is on the developer; whereas in Zig, they can be automatically inferred by the compiler. I don't think the distinction is super important in application work (for example). But for systems code I can see the benefit of having the compiler tell you, with certainty, why a given function can fail (and why it can't). E.g., a good device driver should handle all its failure modes with care, rather than with a shotgun approach.

by Lev1a 8y ago

gmfawcett 8y ago

I don't believe that either ErrorKind or 'failure' gives the same degree of automated enumeration and checking that Zig provides. I'm not a Zig apologist... I just think you should read through the Zig documentation and examine the differences for yourself. https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Errors https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Errors https://ziglang.org/download/0.2.0/release-notes.html https://ziglang.org/download/0.2.0/release-notes.html (see "Error Sets")

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bpicolo 8y ago
If I'm understanding correctly, you can use enums in rust to recreate the same, though it would be slightly more verbose. enum MyErrorSet { NotFound(ErrorKind), SomethingElse(ErrorKind), } If you don't care about propagating the original ErrorKind then that's just enum MyErrorSet { NotFound, SomethingElse }
- gmfawcett 8y ago
  Yes, I think you're right. But the burden for generating and maintaining the enums is on the developer; whereas in Zig, they can be automatically inferred by the compiler. I don't think the distinction is super important in application work (for example). But for systems code I can see the benefit of having the compiler tell you, with certainty, why a given function can fail (and why it can't). E.g., a good device driver should handle all its failure modes with care, rather than with a shotgun approach.