3 ms·

Please elaborate on how it works? Perhaps I got this very wrong; never used an Either<> class. Would an attempt to access the value (if an error was indicated

by dexen 15y ago

Please elaborate on how it works? Perhaps I got this very wrong; never used an Either<> class. Would an attempt to access the value (if an error was indicated instead) cause error condition? Would it be similar in nature to an exception?

masklinn 15y ago
> Would an attempt to access the value (if an error was indicated instead) cause error condition? Would it be similar in nature to an exception? Either is a tagged union (actually a sum type), you have a value OR an error, which are typed (haskell uses Left and Right as the constructors for Either, by convention Left holds an error and Right holds a value, because right is correct). You can not just "cast" your Either, you have to type-check it with a case (or use monadic operators) to unwrap it, and with the right flag the compiler will ensure you're not missing cases. At compile time. Either is basically Schrödinger's box (the computation resulted in both a value and an error), and the compiler checks that you're set for handling both a dead and a live cat, or it will not let you open the box.
- dexen 15y ago
  Thanks for explanations; now it makes sense to me. Another question: is there built-in support, or an idiom or standard practice for unwinding multiple levels of stack? Is it possible to have handler code is not directly in the function that called, but somewhere lower on the call stack -- and have it reached automatically like an exception does? Btw., it seems the bolder statement I post to HN, the wronger it turns out to be... oh, boy XD
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > Another question: is there built-in support, or an idiom or standard practice for unwinding multiple levels of stack? Is it possible to have handler code is not directly in the function that called, but somewhere lower on the call stack -- and have it reached automatically like an exception does? Not that I know, but I am very much a haskell novice. You may want to ask for further information in /r/haskell, on reddit.

by dexen 15y ago

masklinn 15y ago

> Would an attempt to access the value (if an error was indicated instead) cause error condition? Would it be similar in nature to an exception? Either is a tagged union (actually a sum type), you have a value OR an error, which are typed (haskell uses Left and Right as the constructors for Either, by convention Left holds an error and Right holds a value, because right is correct). You can not just "cast" your Either, you have to type-check it with a case (or use monadic operators) to unwrap it, and with the right flag the compiler will ensure you're not missing cases. At compile time. Either is basically Schrödinger's box (the computation resulted in both a value and an error), and the compiler checks that you're set for handling both a dead and a live cat, or it will not let you open the box.

dexen 15y ago
Thanks for explanations; now it makes sense to me. Another question: is there built-in support, or an idiom or standard practice for unwinding multiple levels of stack? Is it possible to have handler code is not directly in the function that called, but somewhere lower on the call stack -- and have it reached automatically like an exception does? Btw., it seems the bolder statement I post to HN, the wronger it turns out to be... oh, boy XD
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Another question: is there built-in support, or an idiom or standard practice for unwinding multiple levels of stack? Is it possible to have handler code is not directly in the function that called, but somewhere lower on the call stack -- and have it reached automatically like an exception does? Not that I know, but I am very much a haskell novice. You may want to ask for further information in /r/haskell, on reddit.