On 13-04-27 08:49 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
Hi all,
This is going to be long, but I've tried to organise my thoughts clearly
and as succinctly as possible.
I've read your email a few times and I _think_ it mostly consists of a
request to add catchable exceptions to the language. Which we won't
Hi Graydon,
On 29/04/13 19:26, Graydon Hoare wrote:
I've read your email a few times and I _think_ it mostly consists of a
request to add catchable exceptions to the language. Which we won't do
(or I won't do, and I will resist strongly as I think it will hurt
users, performance and
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Patrick Walton pwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
Perhaps we could introduce a form which is like spawn a task to catch an
exception from a data sharing view (i.e. it takes an ~fn and can't close
over any `@` data) but is optimized to just call the closure and trap
On 04/29/2013 11:26 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
On 13-04-27 08:49 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
Hi all,
This is going to be long, but I've tried to organise my thoughts clearly
and as succinctly as possible.
I've read your email a few times and I _think_ it mostly consists of a
request to add catchable
Hi all,
This is going to be long, but I've tried to organise my thoughts clearly
and as succinctly as possible.
On 26/04/13 18:06, Patrick Walton wrote:
So here are my ideas. They are very worse-is-better at this point.
* Failing to perform a basic I/O operation should result in a call to
On 4/27/13 8:49 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
This would be a relatively ugly approach, to my way of thinking. Why
should a dead stream be returned at all, if the code to create it
failed? Why should I be able to call write() on something that could
not be created?
Two reasons:
1. If `open`
On 27/04/13 18:51, Patrick Walton wrote:
On 4/27/13 8:49 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
This would be a relatively ugly approach, to my way of thinking. Why
should a dead stream be returned at all, if the code to create it
failed? Why should I be able to call write() on something that could
not be
On 4/27/13 11:36 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
On 27/04/13 18:51, Patrick Walton wrote:
On 4/27/13 8:49 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
This would be a relatively ugly approach, to my way of thinking. Why
should a dead stream be returned at all, if the code to create it
failed? Why should I be able to call
