Talk:Monads/Maybe monad: Difference between revisions
→Languages to which a Maybe monad is less relevant ?
No edit summary |
|||
Line 14:
: I agree - or, more specifically, I could accept either interpretation. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 21:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:: I suppose I see the deeper problem as the tension between structure (often nested) and sequence (often threading more than one strand of data). Not sure if that resonates with the J case. Does J have a more natural way of avoiding/handling exceptions when a input somewhere inside a function nest is out of range ? (or is 'function nest' perhaps a less relevant form of structure in the array model ?) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::: This is a real tension in J:
::: "Exceptions" either cancel processing, meaning no result array, or they must be avoided. If they are avoided, then you need some value in the result for that case. So there's been some extensive work done, within the language, to implement best effort consistent results for exceptional cases where that seems to make sense (and, of course, to generate errors for the nonsensical cases).
::: Also, the language does have try/catch mechanisms, but usually best practice is to instead to use preconditions, to normalize the data, or so on. Exception are usually best thought of as a sign of a problem with the code rather than a sign of a problem with the data. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 21:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
| |||