always-catch: Consider two param then as the same as catch

[feross]

For the always-catch rule, I'd like to be able to consider this:

myPromise.then(doSomething, catchErrors);

as a valid catch, since lots of code that uses standard does that.

[xjamundx]

@feross Yeah catch is maybe slightly better, because it will also catch programmer errors in the doSomething code, but it's certainly better than nothing. Maybe I can add an exception or something. Thanks for the idea. Will mull it over a bit.

[feross]

Yep, I understand. I just couldn't enable this rule without causing tons of standard users' code to fail. If there's a way to just check that there's any catch handler in then() or catch(), that would be a good candidate to enable for all standard users.

[xjamundx]

I'll add a configurable exception "always-catch": [2, { allowThen: true }]. Think that might work?

[feross]

@xjamundx Yep, that'd work.

[xjamundx]

K give me a week if it don't forget !

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Feross Aboukhadijeh <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

@xjamundx https://github.com/xjamundx Yep, that'd work.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4 (comment)
.

[xjamundx]

A lot of people are also saying if the promise is returned it doesn't need
to be caught. I may also add this exception

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Jamund Ferguson jamund@gmail.com wrote:

K give me a week if it don't forget !

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Feross Aboukhadijeh <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

@xjamundx https://github.com/xjamundx Yep, that'd work.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4 (comment)
.

[xjamundx]

Started on this

[xjamundx]

Closed by 41f1c02

[feross]

Nice, will try to release this in standard v7!