From: Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> > If you invert things you can think of "invalid operation" as trying to apply > a valid operation upon the "wrong kind of object" so TypeError is a plausible.
This seems like a stretch :P. Are there existing instances in the ES spec of this kind of use? I guess maybe trying to write to a non-writable property in strict mode and the like. > In practice, where would throwing OperationError instead of TypeError > actually make any difference. How would you handle one differently from the > other? In practice it makes almost no difference, just like all other ECMAScript error type discrimination. It just seems that when a user sees `TypeError` in a stack trace, they expect to find some kind of argument validation problem. (Maybe once we get pattern-matching `catch` clauses it would matter more. E.g. people could purposefully try to catch `OperationError`s from such operations, and handle them differently, leaving `TypeError`s etc. to bubble outward and hit a top-level exception handler as "truly unexpected." But that's a ways off.) --- Sounds like `TypeError` is probably the way to go, even if it feels a bit off. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
