I am not really sure about how to test it, but I guess you know more about
it.
Browsers support the "error" (window.onerror or
window.addEventListener("error", ...)) event, which, if you call
e.preventDefault() and the like, apparently catches the exception (I could
not get it to work for some reason when I tried in the console, though).
I was thinking about the potential performance gains of adding {passive:
true} support for this event - can it simplify some checks and yield (even)
better performance when using the event? Will the V8 engine benefit from
that in some way (for example, fire it not immediately if it knows there is
more code to run at the moment, or something similar, batching and so on)?
Again, I do not know whether there is even any performance implication to
adding an "error" event listener, you probably know more.
Just an idea.
☆*PhistucK*
--
--
v8-users mailing list
v8-users@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"v8-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to v8-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
