> `Carrier` is still pretty parochial; it has this
> normal/exception distinction hardwired into it, no?
To reiterate my earlier point, I'm personally fine with the existence of an entirely separate mechanism for error handling. Mind you, not that this invalidates your desire for a more general mechanism for async et al. Until/if we get HKTs, we'll probably continue to achieve this with bespoke macros as per today's `try!`.
> FromError is not handled specially by the compiler, but it is handled specially by
> the try macro
The `try!` macro is just as non-special as `FromError` (and `Result` and `Option`). You're free to recreate the whole ecosystem in your own libs if you'd like (ignoring the `Carrier` proposal for the moment and its associated syntax).
> The `try!` macro is just as non-special as `FromError` (and `Result` and `Option`). You're free to recreate the whole ecosystem in your own libs if you'd like (ignoring the `Carrier` proposal for the moment and its associated syntax).
Sure. I'm coming at this from a viewpoint of a) syntax is very important b) user-defined macros are generally undesirable
