- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:24:38 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25048 Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |domenic@domenicdenicola.com --- Comment #2 from Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> --- In general, anytime someone is expecting to interface with an asynchronous API, they are expecting asynchronous errors, which are caught via `.catch(e => ...)`. It is very surprising if a synchronous error is thrown. If an API is known to cause both types of errors, you need both `.catch(e => ...)` and `catch(e) { ... }`, which is frustrating. So yes, I think this change would make sense. I'm not sure under what situations it would get triggered---how exception-prone are the operations performed by getters, usually?---but philosophically, it's definitely desirable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 14 March 2014 02:24:39 UTC