Throwing errors typically are not and should not be on the critical path of
any Javascript program. Therefore it makes no sense to add complexity to
make this faster.
Cheers,
Yang
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:03:55 PM UTC+2, PhistucK wrote:
>
> 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
[email protected]
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
