I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by wvenable on Friday April 21, 2017 @06:34PM (#14169949)

I agree it's easy to layer throwing behavior on top of non-throwing behavior -- Java easily chose the worst possible way to do it.

But having both a Parse and TryParse means that I can ignore the result of the Parse call entirely and let it fall through to the exception handler. It is by-definition always expected to succeed so when it doesn't then that's a bug. If you only have one of TryParse or Parse you cannot judge the intention.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by mrec on Saturday April 22, 2017 @02:03AM (#14171293)

> If you only have one of TryParse or Parse you cannot judge the intention.

Sure you can. To take Java as an example, if you only have one parse method and it returns an `Optional`, you can indicate the intention by whether or not you call `get` directly or call something like `isPresent` or `orElse` first/instead. Yes, you can get that wrong, but you can get the choice between `TryParse` and `Parse` just as wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by wvenable on Saturday April 22, 2017 @05:15PM (#14174852)

That's a very good point. I do this all the time with nullable types; I'm not sure why I didn't consider it that way.

[ Parent | on HN ]