- From: Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:20:09 +0100
Jonas Sicking wrote on 8 mars 2009 05:59 > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com> wrote: > > In general i think i prefer this model, despite the fact > that we end up not > > being able to execute js while waiting for later scripts to > load, it's seems > > much more reasonable to give not have side effects if any > of the resources > > has a basic non-execution dependent fault. > > Why do you think it's important not to have side effects for syntax > errors but don't think it's important to not have side effects for > run-time errors? Given that we simply can't fix the latter, I don't > see any advantage to users to attempt to fix the former. Yes, I was thinking the same thing. A counter argument may be that there is a higher probability the developer has implemented recovery from run-time errors (try/catch plus cleanup) than implementing handling for "application doesn't fully load" errors. What do you think? Best regards Mike Wilson
Received on Sunday, 8 March 2009 01:20:09 UTC