On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW for non-DOM code I see people using `instanceof` much more often than > checking `name`.
In public-script-coord and elsewhere people have argued that instanceof is an indication of badness: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/0225.html > Thus I personally think that creating a bunch of new `DOMException` subtypes > would be the way to go, e.g. a `PermissionDeniedError` whose `.name` is > `PermissionDeniedError` and whose `.__proto__` is `DOMException`. That seems like a lot of unnecessary bloat for something that's rather trivial. > If we were starting from scratch we'd probably just have a single > `DOMException` (probably named `DOMError` actually) with a `.code` property > that can vary between types of errors. But since we're not, creating a large > hierarchy seems best, since it allows you to preserve all the usual > properties of JS errors. The only downside of it is that it creates a large > hierarchy, which seems like less of a downside than e.g. having an error > whose `.name` is not equal to its `.constructor.name`. Allen suggested having .subname. But I'm not sure we can still do that and it also seems silly to make these exceptions second-class citizens. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
