Hacker News Reader

Comment by Filligree | Hacker News Reader

I guess I’m not tuned in enough, because I don’t understand the proposal.

How does this improve on (?)?

It's a bunch of syntax sugar. The proposal is that instead of typing this:

    fn foo(b : bool) -> Result<Bar,Baz> {
        ...
        return Ok(bar);
        ...
        return Err(baz);
    }

you can type:

    fn foo() -> Bar throws Baz {
        ...
        return bar;
        ...
        throw baz; //or yeet, in this proposal
    }

and it works exactly identically as the first example. ? still works inside the function just as it normally would. I find the proposal sort of pointless, but also totally harmless, so why not.

That's not all it does. It "breaks" to the nearest "try" barrier. It's basically the desugaring of the Err branch in the ? operator, that you can't currently express yourself. It's mostly relevant for try blocks. I guess you'd most commonly see this in "control flow like" macros that are similar to the ? operator, like various assertion macros that want to "yeet" an error in case the assertion fails (instead of panicking like those in std).

So in a sense it actually is very similar to `throw` in traditional languages, as it can be caught inside the same function and isn't forced to `return` the error outside the function.

yeet e would be equivalent to return Err(e)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com