Note that in my "crazy idea" I didn't say rethrow -- I carefully called it out as more of a "log" than a throw.
Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 12, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Morrison <lbljef...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/12/14, 5:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Jeff Morrison <lbljef...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Crazy, half-baked idea: Move the "forwards" vs "throws/logs" distinction >>>> to >>>> the callsite (in sync contexts only?) rather than the definition context >>>> as >>>> was described at the beginning of this thread. >>> >>> This is already the case. If you want the promise (which "forwards" >>> errors), just call the async function normally. If you want errors to >>> throw through you like a sync function would, use the "await" >>> expression (which requires you to be async as well). >> >> Indeed you could convert the entire signature of your calling function (and >> incur all the effects on the downstream call sites in doing so), but I was >> aiming for a less intrusive escape hatch. >> Additionally, if you're ever operating at a toplevel somewhere, you don't >> really have this option. > > It's impossible to rethrow errors without use of "await" - the error > may happen in a different turn entirely than the function call. You > *must* convert your calling function into an async one, so that it can > do the "freeze and wait for the promise to resolve" thing, which means > that it needs to return a promise for itself as well. > > ~TJ > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
