Error handling is one of the most important—and overlooked—topics for programmers, regardless of the language used. In Haskell, you will find two major types of error handling employed: "pure" error handling and exceptions.
When we speak of "pure" error handling, we are referring to algorithms that do not require anything from the IO monad. We can often implement error handling for them by simply using Haskell's expressive data type system to our advantage. Haskell also has an exception system. Due to the complexities of lazy evaluation, exceptions in Haskell can be thrown anywhere, but only caught within the IO monad. In this chapter, we'll consider both.
Let's begin our discussion of error handling with a very simple function. Let's say that we wish to perform division on a series of numbers. We have a constant numerator, but wish to vary the denominator. We might come up with a function like this:
-- file: ch19/divby1.hs divBy :: Integral a => a -> [a] -> [a] divBy numerator = map (numerator `div`)
Very simple, right? We can play around with this a bit in ghci:
ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,5,8,10]
[50,25,10,6,5]ghci>
take 5 (divBy 100 [1..])
[100,50,33,25,20]
This behaves as expected: 50 / 1
is
50
, 50 / 2
is
25
, and so forth.
[38] This even worked with the infinite list
[1..]
.
What happens if we sneak a
0
into our list somewhere?
ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,0,8,10]
[50,25,*** Exception: divide by zero
Isn't that interesting? ghci started displaying the output, then stopped with an exception when it got to the zero. That's lazy evaluation at work—it calculated results as needed.
As we will see later in this chapter, in the absence of an explicit exception handler, this exception will crash the program. That's obviously not desirable, so let's consider better ways we could indicate an error in this pure function.
One immediately-recognizable easy way to indicate failure is
to use Maybe
.[39] Instead of just returning a list and throwing
an exception on failure, we can return Nothing
if the input
list contained a zero anywhere, or Just
with the results
otherwise. Here's an implementation of such an algorithm:
-- file: ch19/divby2.hs divBy :: Integral a => a -> [a] -> Maybe [a] divBy _ [] = Just [] divBy _ (0:_) = Nothing divBy numerator (denom:xs) = case divBy numerator xs of Nothing -> Nothing Just results -> Just ((numerator `div` denom) : results)
If you try it out in ghci, you'll see that it works:
ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,5,8,10]
Just [50,25,10,6,5]ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,0,8,10]
Nothing
The function that calls divBy
can now use a
case
statement to see if the call was
successful, just as divBy
does when it
calls itself.
The use of Maybe
was convenient, but has come at a cost.
divBy
can no longer handle infinite lists
as input. Since the result is Maybe [a]
,
the entire input list must be examined before we can be sure
that we won't be returning Nothing
due to a
zero somewhere in it. You can verify this is the case by
attempting one of our earlier examples:
ghci>
divBy 100 [1..]
*** Exception: stack overflow
Note that you don't start seeing partial output here; you get
no output. Notice that at each step in
divBy
(except for the case of an empty
input list or a zero at the start of the list), the results
from every subsequent element must be known before the results
from the current element can be known. Thus this algorithm
can't work on infinite lists, and it is also not very
space-efficient for large finite lists.
Having said all that, Maybe
is often a fine choice. In this
particular case, we don't know whether there will be a problem
until we get into evaluating the entire input. Sometimes we
know of a problem up front, for instance, that
tail []
in ghci produces an exception.
We could easly write an infinite-capable tail
that doesn't
have this problem:
-- file: ch19/safetail.hs safeTail :: [a] -> Maybe [a] safeTail [] = Nothing safeTail (_:xs) = Just xs
This simply returns Nothing
if given an empty input list,
or Just
with the result for anything else. Since we only
have to make sure the list is non-empty before knowing
whether or not we have an error, using Maybe
here doesn't
reduce our laziness. We can test this out in ghci and see how it compares with
regular tail
:
ghci>
tail [1,2,3,4,5]
[2,3,4,5]ghci>
safeTail [1,2,3,4,5]
Just [2,3,4,5]ghci>
tail []
*** Exception: Prelude.tail: empty listghci>
safeTail []
Nothing
Here, we can see our safeTail
performed
as expected. But what about infinite lists? We don't want
to print out an infinite number of results, so we can test
with take 5 (tail [1..])
and a similar
construction with safeTail
:
ghci>
take 5 (tail [1..])
[2,3,4,5,6]ghci>
case safeTail [1..] of {Nothing -> Nothing; Just x -> Just (take 5 x)}
Just [2,3,4,5,6]ghci>
take 5 (tail [])
*** Exception: Prelude.tail: empty listghci>
case safeTail [] of {Nothing -> Nothing; Just x -> Just (take 5 x)}
Nothing
Here you can see that both tail
and
safeTail
handled infinite lists just
fine. Note that we were able to deal better with an empty
input list; instead of throwing an exception, we decided to
return Nothing
in that situation. We were able to achieve
error handling at no expense to laziness.
But how do we apply this to our divBy
example? Let's consider the situation there: failure is a
property of an individual bad input, not of the input list
itself. How about making failure a property of an
individual output element, rather than the output list
itself? That is, instead of a function of type a
-> [a] -> Maybe [a]
, instead we will have
a -> [a] -> [Maybe a]
. This will have
the benefit of preserving laziness, plus the caller will be
able to determine exactly where in the list the problem was
—or even just filter out the problem results if desired.
Here's an implementation:
-- file: ch19/divby3.hs divBy :: Integral a => a -> [a] -> [Maybe a] divBy numerator denominators = map worker denominators where worker 0 = Nothing worker x = Just (numerator `div` x)
Take a look at this function. We're back to using map
,
which is a good thing for both laziness and simplicity. We
can try it out in ghci and see that it works for finite
and infinite lists just fine:
ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,5,8,10]
[Just 50,Just 25,Just 10,Just 6,Just 5]ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,0,8,10]
[Just 50,Just 25,Nothing,Just 6,Just 5]ghci>
take 5 (divBy 100 [1..])
[Just 100,Just 50,Just 33,Just 25,Just 20]
We hope that you can take from this discussion the point
that there is a distinction between the input not being
well-formed (as in the case of safeTail
)
and the input potentially containing some bad data, as in
the case of divBy
. These two cases can
often justify different handling of the results.
Back in the section called “Use of Maybe”, we had an example
program named divby2.hs
. This example
didn't preserve laziness, but returned a value of type
Maybe [a]
. The exact same algorithm
could be expressed using a monadic style. For more
information and important background on monads, please refer
to Chapter 14, Monads. Here's our new monadic-style
algorithm:
-- file: ch19/divby4.hs divBy :: Integral a => a -> [a] -> Maybe [a] divBy _ [] = return [] divBy _ (0:_) = fail "division by zero in divBy" divBy numerator (denom:xs) = do next <- divBy numerator xs return ((numerator `div` denom) : next)
The Maybe
monad has made the expression of this algorithm
look nicer. For the Maybe
monad, return
is the same as
Just
, and fail _ = Nothing
, so our
error explanation string is never actually seen anywhere.
We can test this algorithm with the same tests we used
against divby2.hs
if we want:
ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,5,8,10]
Just [50,25,10,6,5]ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,0,8,10]
Nothingghci>
divBy 100 [1..]
*** Exception: stack overflow
The code we wrote actually isn't specific to the Maybe
monad. By simply changing the type, we can make it work for
any monad. Let's try it:
-- file: ch19/divby5.hs divBy :: Integral a => a -> [a] -> Maybe [a] divBy = divByGeneric divByGeneric :: (Monad m, Integral a) => a -> [a] -> m [a] divByGeneric _ [] = return [] divByGeneric _ (0:_) = fail "division by zero in divByGeneric" divByGeneric numerator (denom:xs) = do next <- divByGeneric numerator xs return ((numerator `div` denom) : next)
The function divByGeneric
contains the
same code as divBy
did before; we just
gave it a more general type. This is, in fact, the type
that ghci infers if no type would be given. We also
defined a convenience function divBy
with
a more specific type.
ghci>
:l divby5.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( divby5.hs, interpreted ) Ok, modules loaded: Main.ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,5,8,10]
Just [50,25,10,6,5]ghci>
(divByGeneric 50 [1,2,5,8,10])::(Integral a => Maybe [a])
Just [50,25,10,6,5]ghci>
divByGeneric 50 [1,2,5,8,10]
[50,25,10,6,5]ghci>
divByGeneric 50 [1,2,0,8,10]
*** Exception: user error (division by zero in divByGeneric)
The first two examples both produce the same output we see
before. Since divByGeneric
doesn't have
a specific return type, we must either give one or let the
interpreter infer one from the environment. If we don't
give a specific return type, ghci infers the IO monad.
You can see that in the third and fourth examples. The IO
monad converts fail
into an exception, as you can see with
the fourth example.
The Control.Monad.Error
module in the
mtl
package makes Either String
into a monad
as well. If you use Either
, you can get a pure result
that preserves the error message, like so:
ghci>
:m +Control.Monad.Error
ghci>
(divByGeneric 50 [1,2,5,8,10])::(Integral a => Either String [a])
Loading package mtl-1.1.0.0 ... linking ... done. Right [50,25,10,6,5]ghci>
(divByGeneric 50 [1,2,0,8,10])::(Integral a => Either String [a])
Left "division by zero in divByGeneric"
This leads us into our next topic of discussion: using
Either
for returning error information.
The Either
type is similar to the Maybe
type, with one key
difference: it can carry attached data both for an error and a
success (“the Right
answer”).
[40] Although the language imposes no restrictions, by
convention, a function returning an Either
uses a Left
return value to indicate an error, and Right
to indicate
success. If it helps you remember, you can think of getting
the Right
answer. We can start with our divby2.hs
example from the earlier section on Maybe
and adapt it to
work with Either
:
-- file: ch19/divby6.hs divBy :: Integral a => a -> [a] -> Either String [a] divBy _ [] = Right [] divBy _ (0:_) = Left "divBy: division by 0" divBy numerator (denom:xs) = case divBy numerator xs of Left x -> Left x Right results -> Right ((numerator `div` denom) : results)
This code is almost
identical to the Maybe
code; we've substituted Right
for
every Just
. Left
compares to Nothing
, but now it can
carry a message. Let's check it out in ghci:
ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,5,8,10]
Right [50,25,10,6,5]ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,0,8,10]
Left "divBy: division by 0"
While a String
indicating the cause of an error may be
useful to humans down the road, it's often helpful to define
a custom error type that we can use to programmatically
decide on a course of action based upon exactly what the
problem was. For instance, let's say that for some reason,
besides 0, we also don't want to divide by 10 or 20. We
could define a custom error type like so:
-- file: ch19/divby7.hs data DivByError a = DivBy0 | ForbiddenDenominator a deriving (Eq, Read, Show) divBy :: Integral a => a -> [a] -> Either (DivByError a) [a] divBy _ [] = Right [] divBy _ (0:_) = Left DivBy0 divBy _ (10:_) = Left (ForbiddenDenominator 10) divBy _ (20:_) = Left (ForbiddenDenominator 20) divBy numerator (denom:xs) = case divBy numerator xs of Left x -> Left x Right results -> Right ((numerator `div` denom) : results)
Now, in the event of an error, the Left
data could be
inspected to find the exact cause. Or, it could simply be
printed out with show
, which will generate a reasonable
idea of the problem as well. Here's this function in
action:
ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,5,8]
Right [50,25,10,6]ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,5,8,10]
Left (ForbiddenDenominator 10)ghci>
divBy 50 [1,2,0,8,10]
Left DivBy0
Back in the section called “Usage of the Maybe Monad”, we showed you
how to use Maybe
in a monad. Either
can be used in a
monad too, but can be slightly more complicated. The reason
is that fail
is hard-coded to accept only a String
as
the failure code, so we have to have a way to map such a
string into whatever type we used for Left
. As you saw
earlier, Control.Monad.Error
provides
built-in support for Either String a
,
which involves no mapping for the argument to fail
. Here's
how we can set up our example to work with Either
in the
monadic style:
-- file: ch19/divby8.hs {-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-} import Control.Monad.Error data Show a => DivByError a = DivBy0 | ForbiddenDenominator a | OtherDivByError String deriving (Eq, Read, Show) instance Error (DivByError a) where strMsg x = OtherDivByError x divBy :: Integral a => a -> [a] -> Either (DivByError a) [a] divBy = divByGeneric divByGeneric :: (Integral a, MonadError (DivByError a) m) => a -> [a] -> m [a] divByGeneric _ [] = return [] divByGeneric _ (0:_) = throwError DivBy0 divByGeneric _ (10:_) = throwError (ForbiddenDenominator 10) divByGeneric _ (20:_) = throwError (ForbiddenDenominator 20) divByGeneric numerator (denom:xs) = do next <- divByGeneric numerator xs return ((numerator `div` denom) : next)
Here, we needed to turn on the
FlexibleContexts
language extension in
order to provide the type signature for
divByGeneric
. The
divBy
function works exactly the same as
before. For divByGeneric
, we make
divByError
a member of the
Error
class, by defining what happens
when someone calls fail
(the
strMsg
function). We also convert
Right
to return
and Left
to
throwError
to enable this to be generic.
Exception handling is found in many programming languages,
including Haskell. It can be useful because, when a problem
occurs, it can provide an easy way of handling it, even if it
occurred several layers down through a chain of function calls.
With exceptions, it's not necessary to check the return value of
every function call to check for errors, and take care to
produce a return value that reflects the error, as C programmers
must do.
In Haskell, thanks to monads and the Either
and Maybe
types,
you can often achieve the same effects in pure code without
the need to use exceptions and exception handling.
Some problems—especially those involving I/O—call for working with exceptions. In Haskell, exceptions may be thrown from any location in the program. However, due to the unspecified evaluation order, they can only be caught in the IO monad. Haskell exception handling doesn't involve special syntax as it does in Python or Java. Rather, the mechanisms to catch and handle exceptions are—surprise—functions.
In the Control.Exception
module, various
functions and types relating to exceptions are defined. There
is an Exception
type defined there; all exceptions are of
type Exception
. There are also functions for catching and
handling exceptions. Let's start by looking at try
, which
has type IO a -> IO (Either Exception
a)
. This wraps an IO action with exception
handling. If an exception was thrown, it will return a Left
value with the exception; otherwise, a Right
value with the
original result. Let's try this out in ghci. We'll first
trigger an unhandled exception, and then try to catch it.
ghci>
:m Control.Exception
ghci>
let x = 5 `div` 0
ghci>
let y = 5 `div` 1
ghci>
print x
*** Exception: divide by zeroghci>
print y
5ghci>
try (print x)
Left divide by zeroghci>
try (print y)
5 Right ()
Notice that no exception was
thrown by the let
statements. That's to be expected due to
lazy evaluation; the division by zero won't be attempted until
it is demanded by the attempt to print out
x
. Also, notice that there were two lines
of output from try (print y)
. The first
line was produced by print
, which displayed
the digit 5 on the terminal. The second was produced by
ghci, which is showing you that print y
returned ()
and didn't throw an exception.
Now that you know how try
works, let's try another
experiment. Let's say we want to catch the result of
try
for future evaluation, so we can handle
the result of division. Perhaps we
would do it like this:
ghci>
result <- try (return x)
Right *** Exception: divide by zero
What happened here? Let's try to piece it together, and illustrate with another attempt:
ghci>
let z = undefined
ghci>
try (print z)
Left Prelude.undefinedghci>
result <- try (return z)
Right *** Exception: Prelude.undefined
As before, assigning undefined
to z
was
not a problem. The key to this puzzle, and to the division
puzzle, lies with lazy evaluation. Specifically, it lies with
return
, which does not force the evaluation of its argument;
it only wraps it up. So, the result of try (return
undefined)
would be Right
undefined
. Now, ghci wants to display this result
on the terminal. It gets as far as printing out
"Right "
, but you can't print out
undefined
(or the result of division by zero). So when you
see the exception message, it's coming from ghci, not your
program.
This is a key point. Let's think about why our earlier
example worked and this one didn't. Earlier, we put
print x
inside try
. Printing the value
of something, of course, requires it to be evaluated, so the
exception was detected at the right place. But simply using
return
does not force evaluation. To solve this problem,
the Control.Exception
module defines the
evaluate
function. It behaves just like return
, but
forces its argument to be evaluated immediately. Let's try
it:
ghci>
let z = undefined
ghci>
result <- try (evaluate z)
Left Prelude.undefinedghci>
result <- try (evaluate x)
Left divide by zero
There, that's what was expected. This worked for both
undefined
and our division by zero example.
Often, you may wish to perform one action if a piece of code
completes without an exception, and a different action
otherwise. For situations like this, there's a function
called handle
. This function has type (Exception
-> IO a) -> IO a -> IO a
. That is, it
takes two parameters: the first is a function to call in the
event there is an exception while performing the second.
Here's one way we could use it:
ghci>
:m Control.Exception
ghci>
let x = 5 `div` 0
ghci>
let y = 5 `div` 1
ghci>
handle (\_ -> putStrLn "Error calculating result") (print x)
Error calculating resultghci>
handle (\_ -> putStrLn "Error calculating result") (print y)
5
This way, we can print out a nice message if there is an error in the calculations. It's nicer than having the program crash with a division by zero error, for sure.
One problem with the above example is that it prints
"Error calculating result"
for
any exception. There may have been an
exception other than a division by zero exception. For
instance, there may have been an error displaying the output,
or some other exception could have been thrown by the pure
code.
There's a function handleJust
for these situations. It
lets you specify a test to see whether you are interested in a
given exception. Let's take a look:
-- file: ch19/hj1.hs import Control.Exception catchIt :: Exception -> Maybe () catchIt (ArithException DivideByZero) = Just () catchIt _ = Nothing handler :: () -> IO () handler _ = putStrLn "Caught error: divide by zero" safePrint :: Integer -> IO () safePrint x = handleJust catchIt handler (print x)
catchIt
defines a function that decides
whether or not we're interested in a given exception. It
returns Just
if so, and Nothing
if not. Also, the value
attached to Just
will be passed to our handler. We can now
use safePrint
nicely:
ghci>
:l hj1.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( hj1.hs, interpreted ) Ok, modules loaded: Main.ghci>
let x = 5 `div` 0
ghci>
let y = 5 `div` 1
ghci>
safePrint x
Caught error: divide by zeroghci>
safePrint y
5
The Control.Exception
module also presents
a number of functions that we can use as part of the test in
handleJust
to narrow down the kinds of exceptions we care
about. For instance, there is a function
arithExceptions
of type Exception
-> Maybe ArithException
that will pick out any
ArithException
, but ignore any other one.
We could use it like this:
-- file: ch19/hj2.hs import Control.Exception handler :: ArithException -> IO () handler e = putStrLn $ "Caught arithmetic error: " ++ show e safePrint :: Integer -> IO () safePrint x = handleJust arithExceptions handler (print x)
In this way, we can catch all types of
ArithException
, but still let other
exceptions pass through unmodified and uncaught. We can see
it work like so:
ghci>
:l hj2.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( hj2.hs, interpreted ) Ok, modules loaded: Main.ghci>
let x = 5 `div` 0
ghci>
let y = 5 `div` 1
ghci>
safePrint x
Caught arithmetic error: divide by zeroghci>
safePrint y
5
Of particular interest, you might notice the
ioErrors
test, which corresponds to the
large class of I/O-related exceptions.
Perhaps the largest source of exceptions in any program is
I/O. All sorts of things can go wrong when dealing with the
outside world: disks can be full, networks can go down, or
files can be empty when you expect them to have data. In
Haskell, an I/O exception is just like any other exception in
that can be represented by the Exception
data type. On the
other hand, because there are so many types of I/O exceptions,
a special module—System.IO.Error
exists
for dealing with them.
System.IO.Error
defines two functions:
catch
and try
which, like their counterparts in
Control.Exception
, are used to deal with
exceptions. Unlike the Control.Exception
functions, however, these functions will only trap I/O errors,
and will pass all other exceptions through uncaught. In
Haskell, I/O errors all have type IOError
,
which is defined as the same as
IOException
.
Let's take a look at one approach to using exceptions in the
I/O system to our benefit. Back in the section called “Working With Files and Handles”, we presented a program that used an
imperative style to read lines from a file one by one.
Although we subsequently demonstrated more compact, "Haskelly"
ways to solve that problem, let's revisit that example here.
In the mainloop
function, we had to
explicitly test if we were at the end of the input file before
each attempt to read a line from it. Instead, we could check
if the attempt to read a line resulted in an EOF error, like
so:
-- file: ch19/toupper-impch20.hs import System.IO import System.IO.Error import Data.Char(toUpper) main :: IO () main = do inh <- openFile "input.txt" ReadMode outh <- openFile "output.txt" WriteMode mainloop inh outh hClose inh hClose outh mainloop :: Handle -> Handle -> IO () mainloop inh outh = do input <- try (hGetLine inh) case input of Left e -> if isEOFError e then return () else ioError e Right inpStr -> do hPutStrLn outh (map toUpper inpStr) mainloop inh outh
Here, we use the System.IO.Error
version of
try
to check whether hGetLine
threw an
IOError
. If it did, we use isEOFError
(defined in System.IO.Error
) to see if the
thrown exception indicated that we reached the end of the
file. If it did, we exit the loop. If the exception was
something else, we call ioError
to re-throw it.
There are many such tests and ways to extract information from
IOError
defined in System.IO.Error
. We
recommend that you consult that page in the library reference
when you need to know about them.
Thus far, we have talked in detail about handling exceptions. There is another piece to the puzzle: throwing exceptions[41]. In the examples we have visited so far in this chapter, the Haskell system throws exceptions for you. However, it is possible to throw any exception yourself. We'll show you how.
You'll notice that most of these functions appear to return a
value of type a
or IO
a
. This means that the function can appear to
return a value of any type. In fact, because these functions
throw exceptions, they never "return" anything in the normal
sense. These return values let you use these functions in
various contexts where various different types are expected.
Let's start our tour of ways to throw exceptions with the
functions in Control.Exception
. The
most generic function is throw
, which has type
Exception -> a
. This function can throw
any Exception
, and can do so in a pure context. There is a
companion function throwIO
with type Exception
-> IO a
that throws an exception in the IO
monad. Both functions require an Exception
to throw. You
can craft an Exception
by hand, or reuse an Exception
that
was previously created.
There is also a function ioError
, which is defined
identically in both Control.Exception
and
System.IO.Error
with type IOError
-> IO a
. This is used when you want to generate
an arbitrary I/O-related exception.
This makes use of two little-used Haskell modules:
Data.Dynamic
and
Data.Typeable
. We will not go into a great
level of detail on those modules here, but will give you the
tools you need to craft and use your own dynamic exception
type.
In Chapter 21, Using Databases, you will see that the HDBC
database library uses dynamic exceptions to indicate errors
from SQL databases back to applications. Errors from database
engines often have three components: an integer that
represents an error code, a state, and a human-readable error
message. We will build up our own implementation of the HDBC
SqlError
type here in this chapter. Let's
start with the data structure representing the error itself:
-- file: ch19/dynexc.hs {-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-} import Data.Dynamic import Control.Exception data SqlError = SqlError {seState :: String, seNativeError :: Int, seErrorMsg :: String} deriving (Eq, Show, Read, Typeable)
By deriving the Typeable
typeclass, we've made this type available for dynamically
typed programming. In order for GHC to automatically
generate a Typeable instance, we had to enable
the DeriveDataTypeable
language
extension[42].
Now, let's define a catchSql
and a
handleSql
that can be used to catch an
exception that is an SqlError
. Note that
the regular catch
and handle
functions cannot catch our
SqlError
, because it is not a type of
Exception
.
-- file: ch19/dynexc.hs {- | Execute the given IO action. If it raises a 'SqlError', then execute the supplied handler and return its return value. Otherwise, proceed as normal. -} catchSql :: IO a -> (SqlError -> IO a) -> IO a catchSql = catchDyn {- | Like 'catchSql', with the order of arguments reversed. -} handleSql :: (SqlError -> IO a) -> IO a -> IO a handleSql = flip catchSql
These functions are simply thin wrappers around catchDyn
,
which has type Typeable exception => IO a ->
(exception -> IO a) -> IO a
. We here simply
restrict the type of this so that it catches only SQL
exceptions.
Normally, when an exception is thrown, but not caught
anywhere, the program will crash and will display the
exception to standard error. With a dynamic exception,
however, the system will not know how to display this, so you
will simply see an unhelpful "unknown exception" message. We
can provide a utility so that application writers can simply
say main = handleSqlError $ do ...
, and
have confidence that any exceptions thrown (in that thread)
will be displayed. Here's how to write
handleSqlError
:
-- file: ch19/dynexc.hs {- | Catches 'SqlError's, and re-raises them as IO errors with fail. Useful if you don't care to catch SQL errors, but want to see a sane error message if one happens. One would often use this as a high-level wrapper around SQL calls. -} handleSqlError :: IO a -> IO a handleSqlError action = catchSql action handler where handler e = fail ("SQL error: " ++ show e)
Finally, let's give you an example of how to throw an
SqlError
as an exception. Here's a
function that will do just that:
-- file: ch19/dynexc.hs throwSqlError :: String -> Int -> String -> a throwSqlError state nativeerror errormsg = throwDyn (SqlError state nativeerror errormsg) throwSqlErrorIO :: String -> Int -> String -> IO a throwSqlErrorIO state nativeerror errormsg = evaluate (throwSqlError state nativeerror errormsg)
This completes our dynamic exception support. That was a lot of code, and you may not have needed that much, but we wanted to give you an example of the dynamic exception itself and the utilities that often go with it. In fact, these examples reflect almost exactly what is present in the HDBC library. Let's play with these in ghci for a bit:
ghci>
:l dynexc.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( dynexc.hs, interpreted ) Ok, modules loaded: Main.ghci>
throwSqlErrorIO "state" 5 "error message"
*** Exception: (unknown)ghci>
handleSqlError $ throwSqlErrorIO "state" 5 "error message"
*** Exception: user error (SQL error: SqlError {seState = "state", seNativeError = 5, seErrorMsg = "error message"})ghci>
handleSqlError $ fail "other error"
*** Exception: user error (other error)
From this, you can see that ghci doesn't know how to display
an SQL error by itself. However, you can also see that our
handleSqlError
function helped out with
that, but also passed through other errors unmodified. Let's
finally try out a custom handler:
ghci>
handleSql (fail . seErrorMsg) (throwSqlErrorIO "state" 5 "my error")
*** Exception: user error (my error)
Here, we defined a custom error handler that threw a new
exception, consisting of the message in the
seErrorMsg
field of the
SqlError
. You can see that it worked as
intended.
Because we must catch exceptions in the IO monad, if we try to use them inside a monad, or in a stack of monad transformers, we'll get bounced out to the IO monad. This is almost never what we would actually like.
We defined a MaybeT transformer in
the section called “Understanding monad transformers by building one”, but it is more useful as an
aid to understanding than a programming tool. Fortunately, a
dedicated—and more useful—monad transformer
already exists: ErrorT, which is defined in the
Control.Monad.Error
module.
The ErrorT transformer lets us add
exceptions to a monad, but it uses its own special exception
machinery, separate from that provided the
Control.Exception
module. It gives us some
interesting capabilities.
If we stick with the ErrorT interfaces, we can both throw and catch exceptions within this monad.
Following the naming pattern of other monad
transformers, the execution function is named
runErrorT
. An uncaught
ErrorT exception will stop propagating upwards
when it reaches runErrorT
. We will not
be kicked out to the IO monad.
Do not confuse ErrorT with regular exceptions | |
---|---|
If we use the |
As with other mtl
monads, the interface that
ErrorT provides is defined by a typeclass.
-- file: ch19/MonadError.hs class (Monad m) => MonadError e m | m -> e where throwError :: e -- error to throw -> m a catchError :: m a -- action to execute -> (e -> m a) -- error handler -> m a
The type variable e
represents the error type we want to use. Whatever our error
type is, we must make it an instance of the Error
typeclass.
-- file: ch19/MonadError.hs class Error a where -- create an exception with no message noMsg :: a -- create an exception with a message strMsg :: String -> a
The strMsg
function is used by
ErrorT's implementation of
fail
. It throws
strMsg
as an exception, passing it the
string argument it received. As for noMsg
,
it is used to provide an mzero
implementation for the MonadPlus typeclass.
To support the strMsg
and
noMsg
functions, our
ParseError type will have a Chatty
constructor. This will be used as the constructor if, for
example, someone calls fail
in our
monad.
One last piece of plumbing that we need to know about is the type of the execution function runErrorT.
ghci>
:t runErrorT
runErrorT :: ErrorT e m a -> m (Either e a)
To illustrate the use of ErrorT, let's develop the bare bones of a parsing library similar to Parsec.
-- file: ch19/ParseInt.hs {-# LANGUAGE GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-} import Control.Monad.Error import Control.Monad.State import qualified Data.ByteString.Char8 as B data ParseError = NumericOverflow | EndOfInput | Chatty String deriving (Eq, Ord, Show) instance Error ParseError where noMsg = Chatty "oh noes!" strMsg = Chatty
For our parser's state, we will create a very small monad transformer stack. A State monad carries around the ByteString to parse, and stacked on top is ErrorT to provide error handling.
-- file: ch19/ParseInt.hs newtype Parser a = P { runP :: ErrorT ParseError (State B.ByteString) a } deriving (Monad, MonadError ParseError)
As usual, we have wrapped our monad stack in a newtype
.
This costs us nothing in performance, but adds type safety. We
have deliberately avoided deriving an instance of
MonadState B.ByteString. This means that users
of the Parser monad will not be able to use
get
or put
to query
or modify the parser's state. As a result, we force ourselves
to do some manual lifting to get at the State
monad in our stack. This is, however, very easy to do.
-- file: ch19/ParseInt.hs liftP :: State B.ByteString a -> Parser a liftP m = P (lift m) satisfy :: (Char -> Bool) -> Parser Char satisfy p = do s <- liftP get case B.uncons s of Nothing -> throwError EndOfInput Just (c, s') | p c -> liftP (put s') >> return c | otherwise -> throwError (Chatty "satisfy failed")
The catchError
function is useful for
tasks beyond simple error handling. For instance, we can
easily defang an exception, turning it into a more friendly
form.
-- file: ch19/ParseInt.hs optional :: Parser a -> Parser (Maybe a) optional p = (Just `liftM` p) `catchError` \_ -> return Nothing
Our execution function merely plugs together the various layers, and rearranges the result into a tidier form.
-- file: ch19/ParseInt.hs runParser :: Parser a -> B.ByteString -> Either ParseError (a, B.ByteString) runParser p bs = case runState (runErrorT (runP p)) bs of (Left err, _) -> Left err (Right r, bs) -> Right (r, bs)
If we load this into ghci, we can put it through its paces.
ghci>
:m +Data.Char
ghci>
let p = satisfy isDigit
Loading package array-0.1.0.0 ... linking ... done. Loading package bytestring-0.9.0.1 ... linking ... done. Loading package mtl-1.1.0.0 ... linking ... done.ghci>
runParser p (B.pack "x")
Left (Chatty "satisfy failed")ghci>
runParser p (B.pack "9abc")
Right ('9',"abc")ghci>
runParser (optional p) (B.pack "x")
Right (Nothing,"x")ghci>
runParser (optional p) (B.pack "9a")
Right (Just '9',"a")
[38]
We're using integral division here, so 50 /
8
shows as 6
instead of
6.25
. We're not using floating-point
arithmetic in this example because division by zero with a
Double
produces the special value
Infinity
rather than an error.
[39] For an introduction to Maybe
,
refer to the section called “A more controlled approach”.
[40] For more information on Either
,
refer to the section called “Handling errors through API design”.
[41] In some other languages, throwing an exception is referred to as raising it.
[42] It is possible to derive Typeable instances by hand, but that is cumbersome.