How to handle errors best addressed in a higher abstraction layer and dependent on state inferred in current layer?
I have a use-case that can be repaired, but the logic for repairing it is best done in a higher level of abstraction. Just throwing exception/failure is ugly because it’s hard to pass back up through the stack the information needed for the parent-layer to know how to fix it.
What is better to return from the DataService: Status or Exceptions?
I have a MVVM app with DataServices (using mvvmlight).
Is there a theory for “transactional” sequences of failing and no-fail actions?
My question is about writing transaction-like functions that execute sequences of actions, some of which may fail. It is related to the general C++ principle “destructors can’t throw,” no-fail property, and maybe also with multi-phase transactions or exception safety. However, I’m thinking about it in language-neutral terms. My concern is with correctly designing error handling in C++ functions that must be reliable. I would like to know what the concepts below are called so that I can learn more about them.
Is there a theory for “transactional” sequences of failing and no-fail actions?
My question is about writing transaction-like functions that execute sequences of actions, some of which may fail. It is related to the general C++ principle “destructors can’t throw,” no-fail property, and maybe also with multi-phase transactions or exception safety. However, I’m thinking about it in language-neutral terms. My concern is with correctly designing error handling in C++ functions that must be reliable. I would like to know what the concepts below are called so that I can learn more about them.
Is there a theory for “transactional” sequences of failing and no-fail actions?
My question is about writing transaction-like functions that execute sequences of actions, some of which may fail. It is related to the general C++ principle “destructors can’t throw,” no-fail property, and maybe also with multi-phase transactions or exception safety. However, I’m thinking about it in language-neutral terms. My concern is with correctly designing error handling in C++ functions that must be reliable. I would like to know what the concepts below are called so that I can learn more about them.
Is there a theory for “transactional” sequences of failing and no-fail actions?
My question is about writing transaction-like functions that execute sequences of actions, some of which may fail. It is related to the general C++ principle “destructors can’t throw,” no-fail property, and maybe also with multi-phase transactions or exception safety. However, I’m thinking about it in language-neutral terms. My concern is with correctly designing error handling in C++ functions that must be reliable. I would like to know what the concepts below are called so that I can learn more about them.
Cleanest way to report errors in Haskell
I’m working on learning Haskell, and I’ve come across three different ways of dealing with errors in functions I write:
Is it okay to use exceptions as tools to “catch” errors early?
I use exceptions to catch problems early. For example:
Is it okay to use exceptions as tools to “catch” errors early?
I use exceptions to catch problems early. For example:
Is it okay to use exceptions as tools to “catch” errors early?
I use exceptions to catch problems early. For example: