- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 00:33:02 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623
Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jonas@sicking.cc
--- Comment #4 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-06-19 00:33:01 UTC ---
As far as I can tell, we can change the current DOMExceptions to use this
mechanism without breaking them. Integer constant codes suck, both because
it's a global namespace of code numbers that requires coordination (which
hasn't always happened in the past) and for ease of use for authors. Whether
this is of enough benefit is of course debatable.
I think being able to check `e.name == "ExceptionName"` and for spec authors to
be able to mint "ExceptionName"s are the most important parts of the proposal.
If DOM Core authors aren't willing to rework DOMException into a separate IDL
exception per type, then we could introduce a way to define e.name in a way
that violates the expectation (from ES5's perspective) that it is equal to the
constructor object name (i.e. so that it is not just equal to "DOMException"
for all kinds of DOMException).
Jonas, do you have any views?
--
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 Sunday, 19 June 2011 00:33:08 UTC