Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Insure only rescuing safe errors #99

Closed

Conversation

zeisler
Copy link
Contributor

@zeisler zeisler commented Apr 21, 2016

Remove dynamic Module.=== but insure only rescuing safe errors
Needs test refactor and fixing.

@tfausak
Copy link
Collaborator

tfausak commented Apr 22, 2016

I still feel like this is too complicated. See 2a12612 for my approach.

@zeisler
Copy link
Contributor Author

zeisler commented Apr 22, 2016

@tfausak I think your commit make sense, I'll feel good how it prevent users from easily shooting them selves in the foot. I also see the performance improvements with using a Proc that gets used over and over again instead instantiating a new object every time for the error handler.

@tfausak tfausak self-assigned this Apr 25, 2016
@tfausak tfausak added this to the v2.0.0 milestone Apr 25, 2016
@tfausak
Copy link
Collaborator

tfausak commented Apr 25, 2016

I appreciate the work that you put into this, and I'm glad that you helped me figure out the best way to solve this problem. That being said, I'm going to move forward with my changes in #97.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants