Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by nikcub | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

nikcub

Optional catch binding[0], which is at stage 3, seems like a bad idea[1] and has been pointed out as such[2]

[0] http://2ality.com/2017/08/optional-catch-binding.html

[1] http://wiki.c2.com/?EmptyCatchClause

[2] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-catch-binding/issu...

View on HN

The github issue seems to cover this well: existing linters have code to cover intentionally unused bindings and this is a cleaner way to express that. Do you disagree with the rationale in that discussion?

That's true, but in that case adding optional catch binding is completely useless.

I'd be more ok with it being paired with exception filtering (or what Netscape called conditional catch clauses), ie.

    } catch (e if e instanceof CriticalError) {
        // handle critical
    } catch (e if e instanceof TypeError) {
        // handle type mismatch
    } catch () {
      
    }

so you could at least handle critical and other errors before blindly silencing - but for some reason exception filtering/conditional catch hasn't come up in ECMA

If anyone has any data on this topic I would love to hear and understand it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com