[DGD] Fatal error when no user object returned

[Blain]

If an object isn't returned, it goes out of its way to cause a fatal
error.  Have you looked at the code?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 22:21 Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 18:59 Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I, personally, only questioned if this was the wise way to handle null
> >> > being returned.  I think it's an arbitrary decision by Felix until he
> >> > states otherwise.
> >>
> >> That is your opinion, he has his, and since its his project what he says
> >> goes.
> >>
> >> Arbitrary decisions are just as valid as well thought out ones.
> >>
> >
> > That's what I said.
> >
> >> To me, a null response should just signal a rejection.
> >> > It's not my code.  I'll deal.  But the lib I'm working on is intended
> to
> >> be
> >> > used by people who are, like me, not C/C++ programmers.  We can handle
> >> this
> >> > issue. It's not hard. It list raises the complexity a bit,
> >>
> >> And doing it your way would increase the complexity of DGD by adding a
> >> special case.  There is a tradeoff here, so I don't really think it's
> >> an arbitrary decision anyway.
> >>
> >
> > No, it wouldn't.  DGD is currently explicitly giving a fatal error and
> > crashing. The other idea is to just close the connection.  I don't see
> > either as complex on DGD's side of things.  I don't see the LPC side
> being
> > that complex either.  It's just a pitfall to be guarded against.
> Something
> > else to be aware of and take care to avoid.  I asked if crashing on
> purpose
> > was the wise way to go and nobody has given reason for doing so.  The
> > designer has apparently decided this was the way he wanted it to be, and
> so
> > it is.
> >
> > Besides, not making LPC handle it on its own would put policy issues
> >> inside DGD itself.  Presently, LPC is required to handle it by
> >> returning an object, yet that object is allowed to behave however it
> >> wants to.
> >>
> >> > so I questioned
> >> > if it has a be that way.  Using empty objects which self-destruct
> don't
> >> > make sense, but it's certainly doable.
> >> > I don't understand how you people
> >> > think, hence the questioning.
> >>
> >> Most likely, we come from the point of view that LPC should bear the
> >> complexity burden as much as practically possible, and that includes
> >> keeping special cases out of DGD.
> >>
> >
> > There is no special case being discussed.  DGD could go either way.
>
> I probably should clarify.
>
> By special case I mean that presently, DGD doesn't need to worry about
> what to do if an object isn't returned.  It only has one case to worry
> about, "attach the connection to the object".
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd