<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 28, 2017, at 5:09 AM, Daniel Leping <<a href="mailto:daniel@crossroadlabs.xyz" class="">daniel@crossroadlabs.xyz</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">When you're going to present a user with specific error message you don't do it for all errors. First of all at the end of a call chain you will have a couple of dozens of possible errors and only 2 or 3 will do really matter for the end user. Would you list all the dozen in params? Probably not. You'll just catch what matters and put the rest to the log with a default "sorry" message.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What I mean is it's OK to be "unaware" why everything failed. What really does matter is what you can deal with and what you can't (the rest). "The rest" is usually a magnitude bigger, though.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I might agree, that listing some errors in the throws clause is useful feature for documentation (even so, I think the docs should be in the comments), but only and only if it can throw the listed errors + a bunch of other stuff. In Java it's resolved with a terrible solution of RuntimeError interface which I definitely suggest to avoid.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As a library developer I can say that even for a library it's a nightmare and libraries will start wrapping system errors with their own if the trend would become to list errors in middleware. My preference though is to have all errors transparently passed in both roles, being a library developer and a library user.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Whether to wrap or not is a judgment call. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>If the purpose of your library is to simply provide a cleaner experience for a system API that is a stable dependency that will not change. Users might expect to have the errors from the system API forwarded directly and that would be perfectly appropriate. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>In other cases you might have dependencies that are considered implementation details. In that case if you don’t wrap the errors you’re doing users a disservice by giving them an unstable interface for error handling. Changing out your dependency that is supposed to be an implementation detail becomes a breaking change.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 8:29 Karl Wagner <<a href="mailto:razielim@gmail.com" class="">razielim@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">On 28 Feb 2017, at 02:43, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail_msg m_7664714924591879904Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">Sent from my iPad</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">On Feb 27, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Daniel Leping <<a href="mailto:daniel@crossroadlabs.xyz" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">daniel@crossroadlabs.xyz</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">Well, as Dave pointed, you can very rarely recover from an error, which IMO is absolutely true.</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">If your operation fails you don't really care unless you can recover. And you know your cases, which you can recover from (in reality one usually does it in optimization phase, though).</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">What else do you need the type of error for at the very end of your call stack? In 90% you will tell the user "ah, sorry, something happened. Come back later" and log the error (if you haven't forgot it).</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">In most cases the errors are not for recovering. They neither are to be presented to users. They are for developers to read the log/crash report/whatever else and analyze it. Most of the errors are for debugging purposes.</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">I don't want to deal with cumbersome code the purpose of which is to just "obey the language rules". Unless I know how to recover I would rethrow it. Than catch at the top of the stack and log + show the user a nice "sorry" message without getting techy.</div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">In order to provide a helpful experience to end users an app needs to know about what might have caused the error and therefore what might (or might not) resolve it, allowing the operation to succeed on a subsequent attempt. This can influence the strategy an app uses to avoid bothering the user if it might be resolvable without user intervention and can also influence the content of the message presented to users if that is necessary. </div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">Errors are certainly useful, but the key distinction (IMO) is that callers should never rely on an error happening or not. They are typically highly implementation and hence version-specific. I think that means specific errors shouldn’t be part of the function signature.</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">That doesn’t mean you can’t handle the error. A function that throws is one that reserves the right to fail; maybe you can resolve the problem, but maybe you can’t. That means your enclosing operation also needs to be prepared to fail for reasons beyond _its_ control, and so on. At some point your entire UI-level sub-operation (like opening the file, downloading the data from the network) just fails, and you decide whether or not the user needs to be told of that and how to do so.</div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)" class="gmail_msg">Indeed, many apps don't bother with this kind of detail and just treat all errors the same. Personally, I find that to be an unfortunate state of affairs both as a user and as a developer.</span></div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">Types can be useful in conveying this kind of information and abstracting low level details that are not helpful at higher levels in the stack. Of course types are not the only way to convey this information. But my experience is that untyped errors often result in libraries with poor documentation of error cases and not enough consideration of the error handling experience of users of the library in general. That makes it very difficult to handle errors well. I have experiences like this in several languages and on several platforms, including Apple's. </div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">I’m not sure that types are really the best abstraction for “the list of errors that can be thrown by this function”. They’re fine for error themselves, but not for per-function error-lists IMO. Most of our types are way too rigid for this to be easy to live with.</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">If I understand what you’re saying, the core problem can be summarised as: "I don’t know/can’t easily communicate which errors this function throws”. Really, it is a documentation problem; it's too onerous to document every individual throwing function, even with our very pretty markdown-like syntax. I’m just not sure that the relatively rigid type-system is the solution.</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">Now, if we look at this from a documentation perspective: obviously, the compiler _typically_ can't generate documentation for you, because it doesn’t know what your types/functions are meant for. Error documentation, though, is different: the compiler *can* often know the specific errors which get thrown (or rethrown from a call to another function from whom it can get that information); and even when it can’t know that, often it can at least know the specific type of error. We could enhance the compiler libraries to track that; I spent half a day modifying the existing error-checker in Sema to prove the concept and it’s close.</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">Swift libraries don’t have header files, so third-parties will only ever see your documentation as generated by some tool which integrates the compiler. That means the compiler can “improve” the documentation when it is lacking. For yourself, if you care about explicitly writing out the errors which get thrown and you’re not working with an IDE, you could enable compiler-checking of your documentation comments. We can invent new shorthands to make it easier to list all of your various errors (individual cases, entire types, and maybe some private “other errors”), isolated from the rest of the language. For example:</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">/// - throws: MyError.{errorOne, errorThree}, AnotherError.*, *</div><div class="gmail_msg">func doSomething() throws</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">Maybe you can think of other ways we could help the documentation problem from the compiler side?</div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">Typed errors are certainly no panacea but I believe they can be an important tool. Experience in other languages has shown that to be the case for many people writing many kinds of software.</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">If you don't believe typed errors will improve your code or if you just don't want to deal with typed errors, just don't use them! You will be able to continue using untyped throws just as you do today. You can even do this if you use libraries that throw typed errors.</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">If it’s the wrong solution to the problem, it does make the language worse overall.</div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 1:12 Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail_msg" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br class="gmail_msg">
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Dave Abrahams <<a href="mailto:dabrahams@apple.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">dabrahams@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> on Mon Feb 27 2017, Matthew Johnson <<a href="http://matthew-at-anandabits.com/" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">matthew-AT-anandabits.com</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
>>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Dave Abrahams <<a href="mailto:dabrahams@apple.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">dabrahams@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
>>><br class="gmail_msg">
>>><br class="gmail_msg">
>>> I'm sorry, I don't see any substantive difference, based on what you've<br class="gmail_msg">
>>> written here, between this feature and const.<br class="gmail_msg">
>><br class="gmail_msg">
>> Let me give it one more shot and then I’ll drop it. :)<br class="gmail_msg">
>><br class="gmail_msg">
>> Const is viral because if an API does not declare its arguments const<br class="gmail_msg">
>> it cannot be used by a caller who has a const argument.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Unless the caller casts away const, thus erasing information that was<br class="gmail_msg">
> previously encoded in the type system.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
Yes, of course.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
>> It is required in order to make an API as generally useful as<br class="gmail_msg">
>> possible.<br class="gmail_msg">
>><br class="gmail_msg">
>> Typed errors are not viral in this way because no callers are<br class="gmail_msg">
>> prevented from calling an API regardless of whether it declares error<br class="gmail_msg">
>> types or just throws Error like we have today.<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Unless the caller can recover (which is *very* rare) or it catches and<br class="gmail_msg">
> rethrows one of the errors *it* declares, thus erasing information that<br class="gmail_msg">
> was previously encoded in the type system.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
I view this as being fundamentally different than casting away const. Casting away const says “I know better than the types”.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
Converting an error to a different type is extremely different. It much more similar to any other kind of value wrapper a library might create in order to shield its users from being coupled to its implementation details / dependencies. This is not a way *around* the type system in the sense that casting away const is. It is a way of *using* the type system (hopefully) to your advantage.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
>> Pressure to declare error types in your signature in order to make<br class="gmail_msg">
>> your function as generally useful as possible does not exist. Each<br class="gmail_msg">
>> function is free to declare error types or not according to the<br class="gmail_msg">
>> contract it wishes to expose.<br class="gmail_msg">
>><br class="gmail_msg">
>> An argument can be made that community expectations might develop that<br class="gmail_msg">
>> good APIs should declare error types and they could be considered<br class="gmail_msg">
>> viral in this sense because any API that is simply declared `throws`<br class="gmail_msg">
>> is dropping type information. But I think this overstates the case.<br class="gmail_msg">
>> The community appears to be very sensitive to the problems that can<br class="gmail_msg">
>> arise when error types are too concrete, especially across module<br class="gmail_msg">
>> boundaries. I think we can learn to use the tool where it works well<br class="gmail_msg">
>> and to avoid it where it causes problems.<br class="gmail_msg">
>><br class="gmail_msg">
>>><br class="gmail_msg">
>>> --<br class="gmail_msg">
>>> -Dave<br class="gmail_msg">
>><br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> --<br class="gmail_msg">
> -Dave<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
_______________________________________________<br class="gmail_msg">
swift-evolution mailing list<br class="gmail_msg">
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="gmail_msg">
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class="gmail_msg">
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br class="gmail_msg">swift-evolution mailing list<br class="gmail_msg"><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="gmail_msg"><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>