From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA17836; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:43:16 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA18054 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:43:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.dcs.qmul.ac.uk (vicar.dcs.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.88.163]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hAJEhE122844 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:43:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from new8-pc.dcs.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.88.113] helo=dcs.qmul.ac.uk ident=martinb) by mail.dcs.qmul.ac.uk with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.24) id 1AMTY1-0005xx-9s; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:43:13 +0000 Message-ID: <3FBB8132.70600@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:41:54 +0000 From: Martin Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: skaller@ozemail.com.au CC: Caml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GC and file descriptors References: <1069168323.18363.83.camel@pelican> <3FBA4D97.9060309@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> <1069177584.18363.204.camel@pelican> <3FBAC862.7010603@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> <1069248426.23700.75.camel@pelican> In-Reply-To: <1069248426.23700.75.camel@pelican> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth-User: martinb X-DCS-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-clamav-result: clean (1AMTY1-0005xx-9s) X-uvscan-result: clean (1AMTY1-0005xx-9s) X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 descriptors:01 wrote:03 exceptions:04 exceptions:04 complicated:04 probably:05 type:07 problem:07 memory:09 suggests:10 dcs:11 style:86 style:86 but:16 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk skaller wrote: > To put this another way, exceptions do NOT > reflect the error, they reflect the style > of reporting it. yes, but does the style of reporting have to be exposed at the type level? if yes, then it probably is not just an implementation issue. in my experience, getting error reporting/logging/program-self-monitoring right for non-toy programs is a hard problem and has serious ramifications throughout the whole design of the program, much like concurrency and memory management. the fact that we have a complicated mechanism (exceptions) to deal with this suggests that it should never be an afterthough and relegated to mere implementation details. martin ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners