As the title says it, I have never seen this type of error whereas not even a line number is given only "The body of the #f0 function is too long"
Any ideas?
Not exactly sure if this is relevant regarding functions, but this is information relating to errors thrown due to lengths of 'if' statements, I presume the same logic here is valid with functions too.
"This error occurs when the indented code inside an if statement is too large for the compiler. Because of how the compiler works, you won’t receive a message telling you exactly how many lines of code you are over the limit. The only solution now is to break up your if statement into smaller parts (functions or smaller if statements)."
So, I would suggest you break the function into sections (if possible) or post some code so we may be more able to assist.
Related
The biggest misunderstanding for me in Swift is the throws keyword. Consider the following piece of code:
func myUsefulFunction() throws
We cannot really understand what kind of error it will throw. The only thing we know is that it might throw some error. The only way to understand what the error might be is by looking at the documentation or checking the error at runtime.
But isn't this against Swift's nature? Swift has powerful generics and a type system to make the code expressive, yet it feels as if throws is exactly opposite because you cannot get anything about the error from looking at the function signature.
Why is that so? Or have I missed something important and mistook the concept?
I was an early proponent of typed errors in Swift. This is how the Swift team convinced me I was wrong.
Strongly typed errors are fragile in ways that can lead to poor API evolution. If the API promises to throw only one of precisely 3 errors, then when a fourth error condition arises in a later release, I have a choice: I bury it somehow in the existing 3, or I force every caller to rewrite their error handling code to deal with it. Since it wasn't in the original 3, it probably isn't a very common condition, and this puts strong pressure on APIs not to expand their list of errors, particularly once a framework has extensive use over a long time (think: Foundation).
Of course with open enums, we can avoid that, but an open enum achieves none of the goals of a strongly typed error. It is basically an untyped error again because you still need a "default."
You might still say "at least I know where the error comes from with an open enum," but this tends to make things worse. Say I have a logging system and it tries to write and gets an IO error. What should it return? Swift doesn't have algebraic data types (I can't say () -> IOError | LoggingError), so I'd probably have to wrap IOError into LoggingError.IO(IOError) (which forces every layer to explicitly rewrap; you can't have rethrows very often). Even if it did have ADTs, do you really want IOError | MemoryError | LoggingError | UnexpectedError | ...? Once you have a few layers, I wind up with layer upon layer of wrapping of some underlying "root cause" that have to be painfully unwrapped to deal with.
And how are you going to deal with it? In the overwhelming majority of cases, what do catch blocks look like?
} catch {
logError(error)
return
}
It is extremely uncommon for Cocoa programs (i.e. "apps") to dig deeply into the exact root cause of the error and perform different operations based on each precise case. There might be one or two cases that have a recovery, and the rest are things you couldn't do anything about anyway. (This is a common issue in Java with checked exception that aren't just Exception; it's not like no one has gone down this path before. I like Yegor Bugayenko's arguments for checked exceptions in Java which basically argues as his preferred Java practice exactly the Swift solution.)
This is not to say that there aren't cases where strongly typed errors would be extremely useful. But there are two answers to this: first, you're free to implement strongly typed errors on your own with an enum and get pretty good compiler enforcement. Not perfect (you still need a default catch outside the switch statement, but not inside), but pretty good if you follow some conventions on your own.
Second, if this use case turns out to be important (and it might), it is not difficult to add strongly typed errors later for those cases without breaking the common cases that want fairly generic error handling. They would just add syntax:
func something() throws MyError { }
And callers would have to treat that as a strong type.
Last of all, for strongly typed errors to be of much use, Foundation would need to throw them since it is the largest producer of errors in the system. (How often do you really create an NSError from scratch compared to deal with one generated by Foundation?) That would be a massive overhaul of Foundation and very hard to keep compatible with existing code and ObjC. So typed errors would need to be absolutely fantastic at solving very common Cocoa problems to be worth considering as the default behavior. It couldn't be just a little nicer (let alone have the problems described above).
So none of this is to say that untyped errors are the 100% perfect solution to error handling in all cases. But these arguments convinced me that it was the right way to go in Swift today.
The choice is a deliberate design decision.
They did not want the situation where you don't need to declare exception throwing as in Objective-C, C++ and C# because that makes callers have to either assume all functions throw exceptions and include boilerplate to handle exceptions that might not happen, or to just ignore the possibility of exceptions. Neither of these are ideal and the second makes exceptions unusable except for the case when you want to terminate the program because you can't guarantee that every function in the call stack has correctly deallocated resources when the stack is unwound.
The other extreme is the idea you have advocated and that each type of exception thrown can be declared. Unfortunately, people seem to object to the consequence of this which is that you have large numbers of catch blocks so you can handle each type of exception. So, for instance, in Java, they will throw Exception reducing the situation to the same as we have in Swift or worse, they use unchecked exceptions so you can ignore the problem altogether. The GSON library is an example of the latter approach.
We chose to use unchecked exceptions to indicate a parsing failure. This is primarily done because usually the client can not recover from bad input, and hence forcing them to catch a checked exception results in sloppy code in the catch() block.
https://github.com/google/gson/blob/master/GsonDesignDocument.md
That is an egregiously bad decision. "Hi, you can't be trusted to do your own error handling, so your application should crash instead".
Personally, I think Swift gets the balance about right. You have to handle errors, but you don't have to write reams of catch statements to do it. If they went any further, people would find ways to subvert the mechanism.
The full rationale for the design decision is at https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/ErrorHandlingRationale.rst
EDIT
There seems to be some people having problems with some of the things I have said. So here is an explanation.
There are two broad categories of reasons why a program might throw an exception.
unexpected conditions in the environment external to the program such as an IO error on a file or malformed data. These are errors that the application can usually handle, for example by reporting the error to the user and allowing them to choose a different course of action.
Errors in programming such as null pointer or array bound errors. The proper way to fix these is for the programmer to make a code change.
The second type of error should not, in general be caught, because they indicate a false assumption about the environment that could mean the program's data is corrupt. There my be no way to continue safely, so you have to abort.
The first type of error usually can be recovered, but in order to recover safely, every stack frame has to be unwound correctly which means that the function corresponding to each stack frame must be aware that the functions it calls may throw an exception and take steps to ensure that everything gets cleaned up consistently if an exception is thrown, with, for example, a finally block or equivalent. If the compiler doesn't provide support for telling the programmer they have forgotten to plan for exceptions, the programmer won't always plan for exceptions and will write code that leaks resources or leaves data in an inconsistent state.
The reason why the gson attitude is so appalling is because they are saying you can't recover from a parse error (actually, worse, they are telling you that you lack the skills to recover from a parse error). That is a ridiculous thing to assert, people attempt to parse invalid JSON files all the time. Is it a good thing that my program crashes if somebody selects an XML file by mistake? No isn't. It should report the problem and ask them to select a different file.
And the gson thing was, by the way, just an example of why using unchecked exceptions for errors you can recover from is bad. If I do want to recover from somebody selecting an XML file, I need to catch Java runtime exceptions, but which ones? Well I could look in the Gson docs to find out, assuming they are correct and up to date. If they had gone with checked exceptions, the API would tell me which exceptions to expect and the compiler would tell me if I don't handle them.
So,
I am having a strange behaviour with JBehave. I have a Scenario where I need a StepDef structure like the following:
Given some precondition
When something happens
And something else happens
And yet something else happens
And still one more thing happens
And one more
Then I expect some result
As far as I know, this is a valid syntax for a Scenario Stepdefinition. However, JBehave marks everything from the second "And" as "Pending". If I change the order of the "And" statements, it always runs the first "And" and marks "Pending" starting with the third. If I write it like this it works fine:
Given some precondition
When something happens
When something else happens
When yet something else happens
When still one more thing happens
When one more
Then I expect some result
It seems as if my configuration is limiting the amount of consecutive "And" statements that can be interpreted. However I don't seem to find the problem. What am I doing wrong here?
Lots of things can cause the "pending" message. I have seen hidden spaces (whitespace) cause the error when it's in the .story file but not in the corresponding steps file's method. If you have the second example story, with all "When" statements working, then take that exact story file and ONLY change the "When" 's to "And" 's (except the first one, of course). That would eliminate the possibility that it's whitespace. I assume you know that in either case, all the steps would start with #When("...") (just trying to eliminate all options). Just show us the method headers for each step listed above - we don't need to see the underlying code.
It is ridiculous but this caused PENDING step to me:
When app with ...
And app with ...
Notice that extra space after And
I have a question about inner Matlab error management. Right now I have quite a large program with a lot of variables and functions that cumulated over my code writting and I'm 100 percent sure that I did not catch all the bugs and mistakes in the program and I don't want it to crash completely when is used by layman user. So, is there a way to display errordlg message and for example restart the program when there will be any given error directly by Matlab (for example when I forgot to declare a global variable etc.)?
Thanks for answers, Peter
Crashes are good, because they force users to report bugs.
If you don't want to go that route, Matlab provides try-catch: wrap your code in a try-catch block. If there is an error, you'll find yourself in the catch block where you can have Matlab send you an email with the error message, and restart the program if necessary.
You can use try/catch statements to respond to errors in your program. There's more information here.
Beginning in Scala and reading about Either I naturally comparing new concepts to something I know (in this case from Java). Are there any differences from the concept of checked exceptions and Either?
In both cases
the possibility of failure is explicitly annotated in the method (throws or returning Either)
the programmer can handle the error case directly when it occurs or move it up (returning again an Either)
there is a way to inform the caller about the reason of the error
I suppose one uses for-comprehensions on Either to write code as there would be no error similar to checked exceptions.
I wonder if I am the only beginner who has problems to see the difference.
Thanks
Either can be used for more than just exceptions. For example, if you were to have a user either type input for you or specify a file containing that input, you could represent that as Either[String, File].
Either is very often used for exception handling. The main difference between Either and checked exceptions is that control flow with Either is always explicit. The compiler really won't let you forget that you are dealing with an Either; it won't collect Eithers from multiple places without you being aware of it, everything that is returned must be an Either, etc.. Because of this, you use Either not when maybe something extraordinary will go wrong, but as a normal part of controlling program execution. Also, Either does not capture a stack trace, making it much more efficient than a typical exception.
One other difference is that exceptions can be used for control flow. Need to jump out of three nested loops? No problem--throw an exception (without a stack trace) and catch it on the outside. Need to jump out of five nested method calls? No problem! Either doesn't supply anything like this.
That said, as you've pointed out there are a number of similarities. You can pass back information (though Either makes that trivial, while checked exceptions make you write your own class to store any extra information you want); you can pass the Either on or you can fold it into something else, etc..
So, in summary: although you can accomplish the same things with Either and checked exceptions with regards to explicit error handling, they are relatively different in practice. In particular, Either makes creating and passing back different states really easy, while checked exceptions are good at bypassing all your normal control flow to get back, hopefully, to somewhere that an extraordinary condition can be sensibly dealt with.
Either is equivalent to a checked exception in terms of the return signature forming an exclusive disjunction. The result can be a thrown exception X or an A. However, throwing an exception isn't equivalent to returning one – the first is not referentially transparent.
Where Scala's Either is not (as of 2.9) equivalent is that a return type is positively biased, and requires effort to extract/deconstruct the Exception, Either is unbiased; you need to explicitly ask for the left or right value. This is a topic of some discussion, and in practice a bit of pain – consider the following three calls to Either producing methods
for {
a <- eitherA("input").right
b <- eitherB(a).right
c <- eitherC(b).right
} yield c // Either[Exception, C]
you need to manually thread through the RHS. This may not seem that onerous, but in practice is a pain and somewhat surprising to new-comers.
Yes, Either is a way to embed exceptions in a language; where a set of operations that can fail can throw an error value to some non-local site.
In addition to the practical issues Rex mentioned, there's some extra things you get from the simple semantics of an Either:
Either forms a monad; so you can use monadic operations over sets of expressions that evaluate to Either. E.g. for short circuiting evaluation without having to test the result
Either is in the type -- so the type checker alone is sufficient to track incorrect handling of the value
Once you have the ability to return either an error message (Left s) or a successful value Right v, you can layer exceptions on top, as just Either plus an error handler, as is done for MonadError in Haskell.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
How can I cleanly handle error checking in Perl?
What’s broken about exceptions in Perl?
I saw code which works like this:
do_something($param) || warn "something went wrong\n";
and I also saw code like this:
eval {
do_something_else($param);
};
if($#) {
warn "something went wrong\n";
}
Should I use eval/die in all my subroutines? Should I write all my code based on stuff returned from subroutines? Isn't eval'ing the code ( over and over ) gonna slow me down?
Block eval isn't string eval, so no, it's not slow. Using it is definitely recommended.
There are a few annoying subtleties to the way it works though (mostly annoying side-effects of the fact that $# is a global variable), so consider using Try::Tiny instead of memorizing all of the little tricks that you need to use eval defensively.
do_something($param) || warn "something went wrong\n";
In this case, do_something is expected to return an error code if something goes wrong. Either it can't die or if it does, it is a really unusual situation.
eval {
do_something_else($param);
};
if($#) {
warn "something went wrong\n";
}
Here, the assumption is that the only mechanism by which do_something_else communicates something going wrong is by throwing exceptions.
If do_something_else throws exceptions in truly exceptional situations and returns an error value in some others, you should also check its return value.
Using the block form of eval does not cause extra compilation at run time so there are no serious performance drawbacks:
In the second form, the code within the BLOCK is parsed only once--at the same time the code surrounding the eval itself was parsed--and executed within the context of the current Perl program. This form is typically used to trap exceptions more efficiently than the first (see below), while also providing the benefit of checking the code within BLOCK at compile time.
Modules that warn are very annoying. Either succeed or fail. Don't print something to the terminal and then keep running; my program can't take action based on some message you print. If the program can keep running, only print a message if you have been explicitly told that it's ok. If the program can't keep running, die. That's what it's for.
Always throw an exception when something is wrong. If you can fix the problem, fix it. If you can't fix the problem, don't try; just throw the exception and let the caller deal with it. (And if you can't handle an exception from something you call, don't.)
Basically, the reason many programs are buggy is because they try to fix errors that they can't. A program that dies cleanly at the first sign of a problem is easy to debug and fix. A program that keeps running when it's confused just corrupts data and annoys everyone. So don't do that. Die as soon as possible.
Your two examples do entirely different things. The first checks for a false return value, and takes some action in response. The second checks for an actual death of the called code.
You'll have to decide for yourself which action is appropriate in each case. I would suggest simply returning false in most circumstances. You should only be explicitly dieing if you have encountered errors so severe that you cannot continue (or there is no point in continuing, but even then you could still return false).
Wrapping a block in eval {} is not the same thing as wrapping arbitrary code in eval "". In the former case, the code is still parsed at compile-time, and you do not incur any extra overhead. You will simply catch any death of that code (but you won't have any indication as to what went wrong or how far you got in your code, except for the value that is left for you in $#). In the latter case, the code is treated as a simple string by the Perl interpreter until it is actually evaluated, so there is a definite cost here as the interpreter is invoked (and you lose all compile-time checking of your code).
Incidentally, the way you called eval and checked for the value of $# is not a recommended form; for an extensive discussion of exception gotchas and techniques in Perl, see this discussion.
The first version is very "perlish" and pretty straightforward to understand. The only drawback of this idiom is that it is readable only for short cases. If error handling needs more logic, use the second version.
Nobody's really addressed the "best practice" part of this yet, so I'll jump in.
Yes, you should definitely throw an exception in your code when something goes wrong, and you should do it as early as possible (so you limit the code that needs to be debugged to work out what's causing it).
Code that does stuff like return undef to signify failure isn't particularly reliable, simply because people will tend to use it without checking for the undef returnvalue - meaning that a variable they assume has something meaningful in it actually may not. This leads to complicated, hard to debug problems, and even unexpected problems cropping up later in previously-working code.
A more solid approach is to write your code so that it dies if something goes wrong, and then only if you need to recover from that failure, wrap the any calls to it in eval{ .. } (or, better, try { .. } catch { .. } from Try::Tiny, as has been mentioned). In most cases, there won't be anything meaningful that the calling code can do to recover, so calling code remains simple in the common case, and you can just assume you'll get a useful value back. If something does go wrong, then you'll get an error message from the actual part of the code that failed, rather than silently getting an undef. If your calling code can do something to recover failures, then it can arrange to catch exceptions and do whatever it needs to.
Something that's worth reading about is Exception classes, which are a structured way to send extra information to calling code, as well as allow it to pick which exceptions it wants to catch and which it can't handle. You probably won't want to use them everywhere in your code, but they're a useful technique when you have something complicated that can fail in equally complicated ways, and you want to arrange for failures to be recoverable.