solution to prioritised errors
This commit is contained in:
parent
f1a17032d2
commit
5848712189
@ -6,11 +6,7 @@
|
||||
* Have `Fail` as a separate trait with the error and the class as associated types.
|
||||
* `OverloadClass` to mix-in additional `Fail`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Lack of support for strict ordering of errors
|
||||
* Current (possible) implementations of having one error or another either allow short-circuiting
|
||||
on only one of them, or give them both the same priority.
|
||||
**Right now this model is considered the main one**,
|
||||
i.e. this restriction may get stabilised and standardised at some point.
|
||||
* More complex behaviours are expected to require a more complex execution model, with states
|
||||
taking messages from other states and optionally dropping their own execution, if their
|
||||
result\['s error\] is guaranteed to be "less severe" than the error it receives.
|
||||
## ~~Lack of support for strict ordering of errors~~
|
||||
* ~~Current (possible) implementations of having one error or another either allow short-circuiting on only one of them, or give them both the same priority. **Right now this model is considered the main one**, i.e. this restriction may get stabilised and standardised at some point.~~
|
||||
* ~~More complex behaviours are expected to require a more complex execution model, with states taking messages from other states and optionally dropping their own execution, if their result\['s error\] is guaranteed to be "less severe" than the error it receives.~~
|
||||
* Solution: `Fallible::W<E0>::F<Fallible::W<E1>::A>`
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user