Adam Thompson <[email protected]> writes: > That's really annoying. I've got nothing against taking actions based on the > error number as (if I understand the mechanism correctly) > this is dependant on the type of error. > However, doing things based on the error message (which I think comes from > exceptions, user thrown or otherwise) seems a bit more fragile to me.
It does come from an exception. When out-of-memory is encountered during script execution, this is converted to a JS exception. If it isn't caught, my_ErrorReporter sees it as "uncaught exception: out of memory". You're right. Acting on the error message is fragile, and I don't like it either. On the other hand, I like propagating errors to unrelated parts of the program even less. Yes, there's a good chance that we'll catch the error as soon as we call another JSAPI function, but I think there's also a chance (however slight) that we won't. E.G., suppose the script throws the out of memory exception and a bunch of memory gets reclaimed afterword. This will probably lead to completely unrelated bugs in the rest of the JavaScript executed in this context. So it's a trade-off, and I vote for trying to catch the error as soon as possible. -- Chris _______________________________________________ Edbrowse-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev
