Re: [Caml-list] Uncaught exceptions in function type.

[Romain Bardou <romain.bardou@inria.fr>]

On 27/05/2014 11:28, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 05:25:21PM +0200, Philippe Veber wrote:
>> Hi Romain!
>>
>>
>>> Some issues:
>>>
>>> - One needs to separate exceptions into two groups, the ones that you
>>> are actually interested in typing (their purpose is to kill the program,
>>> so to speak) and the ones that you are not (they are actually used for
>>> control flow).
>>>
>> I would not like such a separation, unless the user can decide the kind of
>> each exception (did you say burdensome? ;o). This kind of separation is
>> pretty much the reason why there are errors and exceptions in Java, IIRC.
> 
> An exception that is used for control flow will be thrown and quickly
> caught. It would not appear in a functions signature if the control
> flow is done right. But if you made a mistake and didn't catch it then
> it should appear in the signature and give you cause to recheck your
> code.
> 
> I would say that exceptions used for control flow are exactly the
> ones that you want typed.
> 
> On the other hand exceptions that kill the programm, like out of
> memory, would be completly useless to type. Basically anything can
> throw out of memory and nobody can catch it. It would simply appear in
> every single (non trivial) function and annoy the programmer.

Right sorry I was apparently not typing what was actually in my head :D

-- 
Romain