tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15136575.post4144190126352628383..comments2023-10-17T12:00:16.772+01:00Comments on Code rant: Monads in C#–2. What’s the point?Mike Hadlowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16441901713967254504noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15136575.post-23538629525937247502011-01-11T16:55:19.115+00:002011-01-11T16:55:19.115+00:00There's obviously a place for unexpected excep...There's obviously a place for unexpected exceptions. How can you predict when an out-of-memory condition will occur, for example. But when you branch in your own code and throw an exception, I personally think it would be better if the caller has some indication that there is an alternative 'return value'. I don't like the Java implementation either, but the way a lot of Haskell code has an explicit error result is very nice.Mike Hadlowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16441901713967254504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15136575.post-33541916369465330372011-01-11T09:57:05.953+00:002011-01-11T09:57:05.953+00:00I'm looking forward to seeing some monad insip...I'm looking forward to seeing some monad insiprations from you. <br />Anyway, I remember that not including exceptions in function signatures was an explicit decision of c# authors. Unlike the Java platform, this allows for less breaking changes in library code. Personally I like not being forced to mention all exception types that my function might throw. Would I also be responsible for all those exceptions that my function is dependent when using other functions/modules/libraries ?Łukasz Podolaknoreply@blogger.com