Post

Nah, if you need something like that, then you probably need to rethink your API a little bit.

Why’s that? Don’t you struggle to identify which part of a with statement failed?

Hauleth

@hauleth.dev

If I need to know which statement failed then I find `with` to be trying to fit square peg into round hole. You either need to know (and then you probably should use `case` or separate function) or you do not care, and then you do not need hops like that.

Hmm idk about this one. I really feel that we should be able to do both: 1. focus on the success path 2. being able to handle the specifics error One would say that the saga pattern is here for that but feels like a bit much to implement for that (sending a follow up skeet)

30/10/24, 4:43 pm0 reposts0 likes

See like how Rust is doing it with the question mark syntax + anyhow? This is the kind of thing I'd need from a language

Hauleth

@hauleth.dev

I do not know how that does conflict with what I said. If you use `anyhow` then you do not care about reported errors anyway, which mean that plain `with` is what you seek.