Something about this whole error-handling proposal confuses me.&nbsp; Here&#39;s my concern: I can see 3 approaches, all having to do with what goes in the &#39;b slot in the (&#39;a,&#39;b) status type:<br><ol><li>Use different, wholly incompatible types in &#39;b.&nbsp; This allows you to put useful information into the signature of each error-producing function, but basically requires individual handling of each error.&nbsp; No monadic magic and no conversion to exceptions is possible, and each error must be handled individually.&nbsp; It&#39;s more explicit and more verbose.</li>
<li>Use the same type in &#39;b everywhere.&nbsp; There&#39;s no extra explicitness here, and I don&#39;t actually see any advantage over just using exceptions.</li><li>Use different but compatible types, e.g., polymorphic variants.&nbsp; Then you get both explicitness and the chance to use monadic or other tricks to join together the errors at the type level.&nbsp; That has some clear advantages (the type system can infer for you the ser of all possible error messages), but we&#39;ve found it leads to some sticky type error messages in some cases.</li>
</ol>So, I understand why someone would try (1) or (3), but (2) seems utterly pointless to me.&nbsp; The proposal seems to be aiming at (1), but then there&#39;s all this talk of monads which doesn&#39;t seem to fit (1).<br><br>
Am I missing something?<br><br>y<br>