Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add new error handling blog post #799
Add new error handling blog post #799
Changes from 3 commits
1a5b996
a0b44d9
eb2d477
189377c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That renders funny with the period following the questionmark.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this is considered the "ideal" approach? It feels as if the mission of the "The Error Handling Project Group" was to prioritise the presentation of errors rather than the handling of errors (as indicated in the project group name). For a systems programming language I feel that the handling of errors should have priority over the presentation of errors; there're systems which do not even have the ability to present error messages to a user (e.g. embedded devices) but where error handling is of utmost importance (and rather poorly supported by Rust at the moment).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps ideal isn't the best vocab here, since there isn't really a right answer. The reasoning is that we evaluated the trade-offs and costs of the various options and found that this was the least bad option, given that it doesn't prevent reacting to source errors via downcasting, where-as the alternative completely prevents configurable and consistent error reporting formats by duplicating information throughout the
Error
interface. If you're interested in a more in-depth analysis of the trade offs and why we felt it was best to prioritize deduplicating information please checkout this issue: rust-lang/project-error-handling#27"Error Handling" a superset of responsibilities, which in my mind includes creating, propagating, matching/reacting, discarding, and reporting. This is more accurately a tension between how you can programmatically react to specific errors and how you represent and report them, as opposed to handling in general. I think its well within the mission of the error handling project group to analyze the trade offs and make a recommendation one direction or the other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can this link to a document with more information about what the current status/blockers are for moving Error into core?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This paragraph starts a bit too optimistically given how it ends; "in theory we could fix this" implies hope, but it seems to me it should read something more like "even in our wildest dreams this probably won't be fixed by specialization".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now that this RFC is in its final revision, just wanted to confirm that everything in this document is still true (bikeshedded names notwithstanding).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This comes a bit out of nowhere considering this is the first item on the plan. There was no other mention of core in the rest of the blog post.