- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:30:49 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623 --- Comment #14 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-09-09 12:30:43 UTC --- I've had another crack at exceptions. There is no recommendation in the spec now to create a hierarchy of exceptions. Instead it recommends to use DOMException for all new exception types, or to mint a new IDL exception only if new exception fields are required. IDL exceptions now conceptually have a "type", which gets mapped on to the .name property in JS. So you could say Throw a DOMException of type "FooBarError". and that would result in a DOMException object whose .name == "FooBarError". You can not specify the type, in which case .name == "DOMException" (so the name of the constructor is the .name of the exception, like the builtin JS ones). There's no IDL syntax for defining exception types like "FooBarError" above; just do this in prose. Jonas, Alex and I had some offlist discussions about whether we could do away with DOMException altogether and just use Error. I think some experiments were going to be done to see if this is feasible. I am happy for now using DOMException. Comments welcome. Perhaps start a thread on public-script-coord if there are issues with this approach. I will declare this Last Call comment resolved at this point, however. Anne, please indicate whether this resolution is satisfactory. See the exact change here: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.397;r2=1.398;f=h -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 12:30:52 UTC