- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:25:17 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26517 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ian@hixie.ch --- Comment #7 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> --- If you read over [1], you will see plenty of justification as to why having only one mode of error handling is a bad idea too. Let's not pretend that there's any kind of consensus on this issue, either. Plenty of people commented on that issue in agreement with the idea that we shouldn't turn type checks into promise rejections. All this bug is asking for is the ability to write IDL without having to have hacks to sidestep this exception-wrapping nonsense. I would much rather be able to write: Promise<Foo> bar(); ...than have to write: interface Whatever { }; typedef (Promise<Foo> or Whatever) PromiseFoo; PromiseFoo bar(); ...which is what I'm currently forced to do to describe APIs that throw in certain cases and return promises when they don't throw. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 18:25:18 UTC