On 2014/04/24 15:05:33, Yang wrote:
On 2014/04/24 14:56:51, rossberg wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/249503002/diff/100001/src/promise.js
> File src/promise.js (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/249503002/diff/100001/src/promise.js#newcode197
> src/promise.js:197: if (!IS_SPEC_FUNCTION(deferred.reject)) {
> On 2014/04/24 14:44:53, Yang wrote:
> > On 2014/04/24 14:33:47, rossberg wrote:
> > > Why do you have to test this case? It will throw in the 'try' below
anyway
> > (and
> > > be handled appropriately).
> >
> > Yeah, it will throw, with a TypeError 'undefined is not a function' as
> > exception. The original exception is then gone. That seems
unintuitive.
>
> That may be so, but that's equally true for other errors that could
come up
from
> the call. Not sure why this one justifies an exception (no pun
intended).
When
> delivering to the handler fails I'd say either consistently keep the
original
> exception, or consistently use the inner one. (Also, this case probably
never
> comes up in practice -- and I dislike introducing random special case
logic
for
> cases that don't even matter. ;) )
Alright then. Let's always use the original exception.
new patch set uploaded btw.
https://codereview.chromium.org/249503002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
