Editorial: usage of "!"

[jmdyck]

(Picking up from #1096 (comment).)

For an operation (abstract, syntax-directed, or type-directed), we can distinguish two possibilities:

• The operation can, under some circumstances, return an abrupt completion.
• The operation cannot, under any circumstances, return an abrupt completion.

For convenience here, we can refer to "can-throw operations" and "can't-throw operations". (There are abrupt completions other than throw-completions, but the latter appear to be of more interest.)

For a can-throw operation, we expect that generally, its invocations will be prefixed by "!" or "?", depending on whether or not the circumstances of the invocation guarantee that the return value won't be an abrupt completion.

But the question raised in PR #1096 relates to can't-throw operations: should their invocations be prefixed by "!" ?

---

Some numbers: (These are my counts. Your mileage may vary.)

The spec has 4247 operation-invocations. Of these,

• 2387 are unprefixed,
• 1576 are prefixed with "?", and
• 284 are prefixed with "!".

Of those prefixed with "!",

• 244 are invoking can-throw operations, and
• 40 are invoking can't-throw operations.

[ljharb]

I would expect and desire every abstract operation to be prefixed by a ? or a ! - to me, the lack of a prefix means that it returns a Completion Record, which means the algorithm must be checking whether it’s abrupt or not.

That the number of changes to achieve this consistency is large doesn’t, to me, detract from the value of the change.

[ljharb]

I would expect and desire every abstract operation to be prefixed by a ? or a ! - to me, the lack of a prefix means that it returns a Completion Record, which means the algorithm must be checking whether it’s abrupt or not.

That the number of changes to achieve this consistency is large doesn’t, to me, detract from the value of the change.

[jmdyck]

to me, the lack of a prefix means that it returns a Completion Record, which means the algorithm must be checking whether it’s abrupt or not.

Indeed, if you take the view that every operation returns a completion record, then you have to use '?' or '!' if you want to explicitly inline-extract the [[Value]]. (Of course, you could also rely on implicit [[Value]]-extraction.)

However, I don't subscribe to that view.

[jmdyck]

to me, the lack of a prefix means that it returns a Completion Record, which means the algorithm must be checking whether it’s abrupt or not.

Indeed, if you take the view that every operation returns a completion record, then you have to use '?' or '!' if you want to explicitly inline-extract the [[Value]]. (Of course, you could also rely on implicit [[Value]]-extraction.)

However, I don't subscribe to that view.

[littledan]

I like the idea of maintaining metadata somewhere about which abstract operations return completion records (i.e., which may throw) and which do not. cc @domenic who I believe suggested this in the past.

This issue reminds me a bit of tc39/proposal-bigint#10 : There are some concepts for when things sort of implicitly become completion records and when not, and it's not immediately obvious to everyone what's going on.

[littledan]

I like the idea of maintaining metadata somewhere about which abstract operations return completion records (i.e., which may throw) and which do not. cc @domenic who I believe suggested this in the past.

This issue reminds me a bit of tc39/proposal-bigint#10 : There are some concepts for when things sort of implicitly become completion records and when not, and it's not immediately obvious to everyone what's going on.

[domenic]

#486 #496 #253

[domenic]

#486 #496 #253

[jmdyck]

Dang, I forgot about #486. I'll close this as a duplicate of that.

[jmdyck]

Dang, I forgot about #486. I'll close this as a duplicate of that.