A programming convention
Ulf Wiger
etxuwig@REDACTED
Tue Jun 11 09:01:46 CEST 2002
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Joe Armstrong wrote:
>Without the Q the function must work. The relationship is
>obvious
>
> lookup(Key, Dict) ->
> case (catch lookupQ(Key, Dict)) of
> {'EXIT', Why} ->
> {error, Why};
> Other ->
> {ok, Other}
> end.
...Obvious, but (obviously) the opposite of the above. ;)
lookupQ(Key, Dict) ->
case (catch lookup(Key, Dict)) of
{'EXIT', Why} ->
{error, Why};
Other ->
{ok, Other}
end.
>We also say that functions with a Q at the end of the name *always*
>return maybe() types << maybe() = {ok, Val} | {error, Why} >>
>
>If we do all this we will *finally* be able to define an error
>in a program as a "top level untrapped exit"
>
>Comments welcome
I don't have any objections. If there is a better alternative
than a 'Q' suffix, I can't think of it right now.
/Uffe
--
Ulf Wiger, Senior Specialist,
/ / / Architecture & Design of Carrier-Class Software
/ / / Strategic Product & System Management
/ / / Ericsson Telecom AB, ATM Multiservice Networks
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list