[erlang-questions] Erlang style question - input handling

[Ben Butler-Cole]

> Nohl Attila Rajmund <attila.rajmund.nohl@REDACTED> wrote:
> > I have a couple of functions which follow this pattern:
> >     f(X, Y) ->
> >          % collect some data
> >          % do something with the collected data
> >          .
> >     
> >     In C/C++/Java I'd insert a code like this
> >     between the collecting part and the "do something" part:
> >     
> >     if (!check1(data1)) return ERROR_CODE1;
> >     if (!check2(data2)) return ERROR_CODE2;
> >     if (!check3(data3)) return ERROR_CODE3;

Richard A. O'Keefe replied:

> By the way, I have very serious doubts about the interface of this
> function.  Why should the caller have to work so hard to figure out
> whether they got a good result or a bad one?  The natural thing to do
> in C++ or Java is *NOT* to return an error code but to throw an
> error term

If you're going to abandon the error codes why not go the whole hog and just blow up if the data is wrong:

f(X, Y) ->
    data1 = collect_data1(X, Y),
    % etc

    ok = check1(data1),
    % etc

    do_stuff_with(data1),
    % etc
    .