on_error Functionality #65

Activity

1. EntilZha

   self-assigned this

   on Apr 4, 2016
2. EntilZha

   added

   feature

   on Apr 4, 2016
3. EntilZha

   added this to the 1.0.0 milestone on Apr 4, 2016
4. EntilZha

   changed the title [-]`on_error` Functionality[/-] [+]on_error Functionality[/+] on Apr 4, 2016
5. EntilZha

   modified the milestones: 0.7.0, 1.0.0 on May 6, 2016
6. EntilZha commented on May 7, 2016

   

   EntilZha

   on May 7, 2016

   OwnerAuthor

   More actions

   Gave a good shot at implementing this and don't think that the changes to make it happen would be worth it.

   Consider this code block:

   def f(x):
       if x == 1:
           raise ValueError("Not 1!")
       return x * 2
   seq.range(4).map(f)

   In order to handle this, its not enough to wrap the code that executes the sequence, it will still error out. In order to catch that exception you either need to catch it where next is called, wrap f when it is passed through to map, or use a yield statement like done here https://github.com/jagill/python-chainz/blob/master/chainz/chain.py#L52

   The first one is obviously not an option since thats user code vs library code. There are two possible problematic implementations:

   1. You could wrap f then pass it through. The issue is that there would need to be checks on all methods that accept a function if on_error would work as expected. This is a lot of methods that would have to be changed to support this single one which I don't think adds much value (more on this later)
   2. The second one is clear how to do for map and other functions that operate at a single "level". For example, flat_map since tricky since the results have to get concatenated. The generalization is that implementing this would be method specific so quite a bit of work.

   Lastly, I don't think it brings much value for all the effort needed. It would be much easier for user code to handle the exception explicitly. This could be easy to do using flat_map very easily. If there is an error output an empty list, otherwise a tuple of one element (yay monads). It would also be easy to do a map then filter.

   I had hoped the implementation wouldn't require so much code change and would be easy, but wasn't to be. I am open to other ideas, but closing issue for now.
7. EntilZha

   closed this as completedon May 7, 2016
8. EntilZha

   added

   wontfix

   on May 7, 2016