[Catalyst] Re: [again] die() in an action chain : does not break the chain !

[Ashley]

[snipped a bit from below]
> Which brings me to `halt`.
>
> Suggested plugin name: HaltRequest

I think this is quite nice; HaltRequest and halt(). I'll
wait a couple of days, maybe try to write some tests, to
see if there is more feedback and then give it a try.

On Mar 15, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Ashley <apv at sedition.com> [2008-03-15 06:15]:
>> While we're on the topic. How abhorrent/stupid is this?
>>        $c->die();
>>    # or
>>        $c->die("Dying is easy, comedy is hard");
>>
>> I'd really like something like this. I could go for $c->fatal()
>> too. fatal_error() is nice and descriptive but I lean toward
>> something shorter if it can be agreed upon.
>
> FWIW, I based it on the feel of `error_out`.
>
>> It should convey, /somehow/, that it's circumventing further
>> processing excepting the end. "die" feels intuitive and is
>> super easy to type but it seems too loaded.
>
> At first I was going to suggest `abort`. It’s too ambiguous tho:
> the verb is both transitive and intransitive, and it’s not clear
> that the latter sense is meant. Also if used transitively it’d be
> unclear whether it’s like `forward`/`detach` in that it takes an
> action, or if it expects a different kind of argument. It would
> have to be `abort_with_msg` or something; but that’s a good deal
> worse than `fatal_error`.
>
> Then I thought of `fail`. That does not suffer from these
> problems and is almost as short as `die`. It’s somewhat loaded,
> though, even though in a very different way from `die`
> (particularly for Perl programmers). Not every case where one
> wants to abort the request processing is a failure.
>
> That would suggest something like `stop`. But that has much the
> same linguistic ambiguity problems as `abort`, if not to the same
> degree (because it doesn’t have quite as many connotations in
> programming as `abort`). But it says a little too little about
> what is being stopped. It’s not necessarily clear that it means
> stopping the request processing as opposed to stopping whatever
> else one might stop.
>
> Maybe `quit`? The problem with that is that it suggests that the
> Cat app terminates altogether. Other than that it would seem like
> a good candidate, because I think the connotation of quitting in
> computing makes it quite clear that this wouldn’t expect an action
> as an argument, say.
>
> Which brings me to `halt`. As far as I can tell, that suffers
> from none of the problems with any of the other options. It has a
> strong connotation of “halt processing” in computing and it’s
> very clear that it is intransitive, and unlike `fail` it doesn’t
> make a strong suggestion about whether the outcome is desirable,
> although it is negatively connoted.
>
> As a bonus, it’s word you can imagine a burly German yelling.
>
> Suggested plugin name: HaltRequest
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
>