feat: Recover from errors with move semantics#44
Closed
feat: Recover from errors with move semantics#44
Conversation
Contributor
|
Thanks for putting this experiment together. After the follow-up discussion in #50, we decided not to pursue move-based recovery in I'll close this, but the experiment is still useful context if we revisit owned traversal later. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is an experiment on how to recover from errors using move semantics. This adds an additional (generic) field to
Exn<E, R>which we can move out usingexn.recover(). By default we have no recovery value so all previous uses ofExnare unchanged.I also added an example to show how one would use this recovery mechanism.
This PR is only intended as a reference for issue #43. There may be better approaches on how to achieve this goal.