On 09/23/2015 03:09 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
CM is not intended to be a design pattern people should mimic. We are so bad at this it would be a shame. No one in its right mind would copy or reuse this stuff. It is for internal use only and we don't even have the resources to manage it by ourselves
[...]
CM is not intended to be a design pattern people should mimic.
We are so bad at this
The crux is that the project's team is in effect not _interested_
in this. [And I admit that I had not understood it for a long
time (hence the temptation to convince that it was important for
*some* peo
Le 23/09/2015 19:20, Ole Ersoy a écrit :
> HI Luc,
Hi Ole,
>
> On 09/23/2015 03:02 AM, luc wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le 2015-09-22 02:55, Ole Ersoy a écrit :
>>> Hola,
>>>
>>> On 09/21/2015 04:15 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:04:08 -0500, Ole Ersoy wrote:
> On 09/20/2
Luc,
Just wanted to mention one more thing (On top of the other 325 :) ). The
callback design does not bubble exceptions, but we can still get the same
effect, and do better. For the app we would define a global error handler and
make that handler part of each callback. So if are using:
Foo
HI Luc,
On 09/23/2015 03:02 AM, luc wrote:
Hi,
Le 2015-09-22 02:55, Ole Ersoy a écrit :
Hola,
On 09/21/2015 04:15 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:04:08 -0500, Ole Ersoy wrote:
On 09/20/2015 05:51 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 01:12:49 -0500, Ole Ersoy wrote:
Wanted t
Hello Luc.
I obviously agree with your main conclusion in that exceptions are
still
a better alternative to what (we think) we understood from Ole's
proposal.
However I don't agree about what is a "mess" on the "exception front"
and what is not, and which part of the library is more to blame
Hi,
Le 2015-09-22 02:55, Ole Ersoy a écrit :
Hola,
On 09/21/2015 04:15 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:04:08 -0500, Ole Ersoy wrote:
On 09/20/2015 05:51 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 01:12:49 -0500, Ole Ersoy wrote:
Wanted to float some ideas for the LeastSquaresOptimi
