I have two functions that are similar but can fail with different errors:

#[derive(Debug, thiserror::Error)]
enum MyError {
  #[error("error a")]
  MyErrorA,
  #[error("error b")]
  MyErrorB,
  #[error("bad value ({0})")]
  MyErrorCommon(String),
}

fn functionA() -> Result<String, MyError> {
  // can fail with MyErrorA MyErrorCommon
  todo!()
}

fn functionB() -> Result<String, MyError> {
  // can fail with MyErrorB MyErrorCommon
  todo!()
}

Is there an elegant (*) way I can express this?

If I split the error type into two separate types, is there a way to reuse the definition of MyErrorCommon?


(*) by “elegant” I mean something that improves the code - I’m sure one could define a few macros and solve that way, but I don’t want to go there

edit: grammar (rust grammar)

  • gompOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Different functions whose possible failure reasons have a non-empty intersection, but don’t coincide completely (IDK if this clarifies? I think the example code in the OP is clearer)

    • BB_C@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, I got that.

      I’m asking what would be the benefit of not using a single error enum for all failure reasons?