- From: Domenic Denicola <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:24:21 -0700
- To: heycam/webidl <webidl@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <heycam/webidl/pull/791/review/283700231@github.com>
domenic commented on this pull request. > @@ -8236,8 +8236,15 @@ IDL [=promise type=] values are represented by ECMAScript [=PromiseCapability=] steps: 1. Let |onFulfilledSteps| be the following steps given argument |V|: - 1. Let |value| be the result of [=converted to an IDL value|converting=] |V| to an IDL - value of type |T|. + 1. Try running the following step: + 1. Let |value| be the result of [=converted to an IDL value|converting=] |V| to an IDL + value of type |T|. + + And then, if <a lt="an exception was thrown">an exception |exception| was thrown</a>: + + 1. If there are steps that are required to be run if the promise was rejected, let + |result| be the result of performing those steps, given |exception|. > Are you aware of an existing case to inform the decision? I'm not aware of any. However I generally think aligning with promise.then() will be more intuitive for spec authors, if we have that degree of freedom. So I'd prefer that if possible. > Writing this, I'm realizing that we never actually pass the rejection along, the way WebAssembly needs. Should we pass undefined instead of onRejectedSteps if there's no steps? Definitely. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/791#discussion_r320823311
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2019 15:24:43 UTC