Allow set default value to CatchParameter

[chicoxyzzy]

There is some inconsistency between CatchParameter and BindingElement (i.e. function parameters).

Example from babel/babel#7434:

try {
  throw undefined;
} catch ({foo = 'bar'} = {}) {
  console.log(foo);
}

This is Syntax Error according to current spec grammar, but are there any reasons why assigning default value is not allowed here while destructuring (and default parameters inside of it) work fine?

[chicoxyzzy]

My proposal is to change

CatchParameter[Yield, Await]:
  BindingIdentifier[?Yield, ?Await]
  BindingPattern[?Yield, ?Await]

to

CatchParameter[Yield, Await]:
  SingleNameBinding[?Yield, ?Await]
  BindingPattern[?Yield, ?Await]Initializer[+In, ?Yield, ?Await]opt

or

CatchParameter[Yield, Await]:
  BindingIdentifier[?Yield, ?Await]Initializer[+In, ?Yield, ?Await]opt
  BindingPattern[?Yield, ?Await]Initializer[+In, ?Yield, ?Await]opt

I'll be happy to file PR here and in test262 repo if this proposal sounds ok

[chicoxyzzy]

My proposal is to change

CatchParameter[Yield, Await]:
  BindingIdentifier[?Yield, ?Await]
  BindingPattern[?Yield, ?Await]

to

CatchParameter[Yield, Await]:
  SingleNameBinding[?Yield, ?Await]
  BindingPattern[?Yield, ?Await]Initializer[+In, ?Yield, ?Await]opt

or

CatchParameter[Yield, Await]:
  BindingIdentifier[?Yield, ?Await]Initializer[+In, ?Yield, ?Await]opt
  BindingPattern[?Yield, ?Await]Initializer[+In, ?Yield, ?Await]opt

I'll be happy to file PR here and in test262 repo if this proposal sounds ok

[chicoxyzzy]

To be clear, this problem was reported in Babel and it was caused by 3rd party library (regenerator in this case). Since it already possible to catch any object or primitive value, it looks weird that it's possible to use destructuring and default parameters inside it, but impossible to set default value for CatchParameter.

[chicoxyzzy]

To be clear, this problem was reported in Babel and it was caused by 3rd party library (regenerator in this case). Since it already possible to catch any object or primitive value, it looks weird that it's possible to use destructuring and default parameters inside it, but impossible to set default value for CatchParameter.

[littledan]

I can see the consistency argument for this change, but I'm wondering--when would you actually want to throw undefined?

[littledan]

I can see the consistency argument for this change, but I'm wondering--when would you actually want to throw undefined?

[chicoxyzzy]

@littledan personally I don't want to throw undefined or any other primitive or object except real Error :) This may happen in 3rd party libraries.

[chicoxyzzy]

@littledan personally I don't want to throw undefined or any other primitive or object except real Error :) This may happen in 3rd party libraries.

[allenwb]

This was an intentional design decision. Because the expectation is there should always be some object coercible value (ie, not undefined or null) that was thrown.

If you want to explore changing something, how about exploring to refusing to throw undefined.

WRT changing CatchParameter, I don't think we should do it. Is somebody really wants to restructure a catch parameter and are concerned about null or undefined they can move the destructuring into the body of the catch clause.

[allenwb]

This was an intentional design decision. Because the expectation is there should always be some object coercible value (ie, not undefined or null) that was thrown.

If you want to explore changing something, how about exploring to refusing to throw undefined.

WRT changing CatchParameter, I don't think we should do it. Is somebody really wants to restructure a catch parameter and are concerned about null or undefined they can move the destructuring into the body of the catch clause.

[ljharb]

can someone clarify: is it “a default value in the catch binding” that’s currently disallowed, or only in the presence of destructuring, or is it destructuring in the catch binding that’s currently disallowed?

[ljharb]

can someone clarify: is it “a default value in the catch binding” that’s currently disallowed, or only in the presence of destructuring, or is it destructuring in the catch binding that’s currently disallowed?

[ljharb]

(Separately, even if you can’t throw undefined, you’ll always be able to await Promise.reject() which causes an undefined to be thrown; preventing throwing undefined i suspect is a nonstarter)

[ljharb]

(Separately, even if you can’t throw undefined, you’ll always be able to await Promise.reject() which causes an undefined to be thrown; preventing throwing undefined i suspect is a nonstarter)

[allenwb]

It's a BindingIdentifier or a BindingPattern, neither of which may have a initializer.

Why in the world does await Promise.reject() throw undefined. It sounds like we've just made catching undefined a normal expectation and that seems like a significant change to how exceptions had previously been used in the ES specification.

[allenwb]

It's a BindingIdentifier or a BindingPattern, neither of which may have a initializer.

Why in the world does await Promise.reject() throw undefined. It sounds like we've just made catching undefined a normal expectation and that seems like a significant change to how exceptions had previously been used in the ES specification.

[getify]

A couple use cases for throwing undefined:

1. For awhile in the pre/early days of ES6, some transpilers used a try..catch hack for transpiling let block-scoped declarations. For example, my let-er project:

   {
       let x;
       console.log(x);
       x = 1;
       console.log(x);
   }

   became:

   try { throw undefined; } catch (x) {
      console.log(x);
      x = 1;
      console.log(x);
   }

2. If you have multiple paths that can throw exceptions, and some of those paths are only to "escape" (e.g., break out of) a try block:

   try {
      var x = foo();
      var y = bar(x);
      if (y < 10) throw undefined;   // kinda like break; or return;
      var z = baz(y);
   }
   catch (err) {
      if (err != undefined) console.log(err);
   }

Both of these are uses that I've actually done in real production code. May not be "ideal" or "recommended", but I'm quite certain that throw undefined is not unprecedented, and can't just be dismissed.

[getify]

A couple use cases for throwing undefined:

1. For awhile in the pre/early days of ES6, some transpilers used a try..catch hack for transpiling let block-scoped declarations. For example, my let-er project:

   {
       let x;
       console.log(x);
       x = 1;
       console.log(x);
   }

   became:

   try { throw undefined; } catch (x) {
      console.log(x);
      x = 1;
      console.log(x);
   }

2. If you have multiple paths that can throw exceptions, and some of those paths are only to "escape" (e.g., break out of) a try block:

   try {
      var x = foo();
      var y = bar(x);
      if (y < 10) throw undefined;   // kinda like break; or return;
      var z = baz(y);
   }
   catch (err) {
      if (err != undefined) console.log(err);
   }

Both of these are uses that I've actually done in real production code. May not be "ideal" or "recommended", but I'm quite certain that throw undefined is not unprecedented, and can't just be dismissed.

[ljharb]

Catching undefined has always been possible; and I’d say with the introduction of Promises that can reject with a nullish reason, that was permanently cemented in ES2015 (due to the intended parallels between rejection and throwing)

[ljharb]

Catching undefined has always been possible; and I’d say with the introduction of Promises that can reject with a nullish reason, that was permanently cemented in ES2015 (due to the intended parallels between rejection and throwing)

[bakkot]

While it's certainly possible, I'm not sure it's a case which merits having explicit grammar support to handle.

[bakkot]

While it's certainly possible, I'm not sure it's a case which merits having explicit grammar support to handle.

[ljharb]

From the spec side it’s explicit support, sure, but from the user side it looks like an explicit and surprising restriction imo.

[ljharb]

From the spec side it’s explicit support, sure, but from the user side it looks like an explicit and surprising restriction imo.

[littledan]

@getify for 2., would labeled blocks work? See the MDN article for an example.

[littledan]

@getify for 2., would labeled blocks work? See the MDN article for an example.

[getify]

@littledan not in this particular case because what you want is the code in the catch to have a chance to run.

[getify]

@littledan not in this particular case because what you want is the code in the catch to have a chance to run.

[littledan]

I mean, you could decouple the breaking-out and the catch block as follows, eliminating the need for the conditional and use of undefined as a sentinel; might be more straightforward:

try {
   label: {
      var x = foo();
      var y = bar(x);
      if (y < 10) break label;
      var z = baz(y);
   }
}
catch (err) {
   console.log(err);
}

[littledan]

I mean, you could decouple the breaking-out and the catch block as follows, eliminating the need for the conditional and use of undefined as a sentinel; might be more straightforward:

try {
   label: {
      var x = foo();
      var y = bar(x);
      if (y < 10) break label;
      var z = baz(y);
   }
}
catch (err) {
   console.log(err);
}

[getify]

@littledan yes that could work in certain circumstances. but any code after the labeled block (aka any sentinel conditional code) should only run in the break case and not in the normal flow case, so that has to be accounted for in some way. also, adding extra blocks (esp if there's more than one) has the potential extra complication of juggling block-scoped declarations.

[getify]

@littledan yes that could work in certain circumstances. but any code after the labeled block (aka any sentinel conditional code) should only run in the break case and not in the normal flow case, so that has to be accounted for in some way. also, adding extra blocks (esp if there's more than one) has the potential extra complication of juggling block-scoped declarations.

[chicoxyzzy]

undefined couldn't be avoided for some 3rd party code and it is possible to throw undefined since ES3, also I don't see any strong arguments against of Initialiser in CatchParameter. Sure, one can use check inside of body of catch clause but there is no single reason for such restriction.

Since this code is valid

try {
  // ...
} catch ({foo = 'bar'}) {
  // do something with foo
}

I don't see any reasons why one should write

try {
  // ...
} catch (e) {
  const foo = typeof e === 'undefined' || typeof e.foo === 'undefined'
    ? 'bar'
    : e.foo;
  // do something with foo
}

instead of just

try {
  // ...
} catch ({foo = 'bar'} = {}) {
  // do something with foo
}

[chicoxyzzy]

undefined couldn't be avoided for some 3rd party code and it is possible to throw undefined since ES3, also I don't see any strong arguments against of Initialiser in CatchParameter. Sure, one can use check inside of body of catch clause but there is no single reason for such restriction.

Since this code is valid

try {
  // ...
} catch ({foo = 'bar'}) {
  // do something with foo
}

I don't see any reasons why one should write

try {
  // ...
} catch (e) {
  const foo = typeof e === 'undefined' || typeof e.foo === 'undefined'
    ? 'bar'
    : e.foo;
  // do something with foo
}

instead of just

try {
  // ...
} catch ({foo = 'bar'} = {}) {
  // do something with foo
}

[littledan]

Honestly it's hard for me to understand when it would be useful to use destructuring in a catch binding, so I'm having trouble making a mental model to weigh @chicoxyzzy 's vs @allenwb 's logic. Could you give an example of a case you'd want to use destructuring with an object literal in a catch binding?

[littledan]

Honestly it's hard for me to understand when it would be useful to use destructuring in a catch binding, so I'm having trouble making a mental model to weigh @chicoxyzzy 's vs @allenwb 's logic. Could you give an example of a case you'd want to use destructuring with an object literal in a catch binding?

[ljharb]

Destructuring works with any object including an error instance; I’ve used it for destructuring out a message, stack trace, and error code.

[ljharb]

Destructuring works with any object including an error instance; I’ve used it for destructuring out a message, stack trace, and error code.

[getify]

@littledan @ljharb I have too... especially useful to apply defaults to properties of an Error object that may not be present in all engines, like stack, etc.

[getify]

@littledan @ljharb I have too... especially useful to apply defaults to properties of an Error object that may not be present in all engines, like stack, etc.

[littledan]

OK, this makes perfect sense--you want to read these properties of the object through destructuring, but default to an empty object if a library you're calling out to throws null or undefined. Did you consider that case when deciding against supporting it, @allenwb ?

If we want to do this spec change, I wonder if we should just get rid of the CatchParameter production and use BindingElement instead, directly in the grammar of Catch. Would that do something different from your second proposal, @chicoxyzzy ? Did you have a particular reason why the first alternative might be preferred?

[littledan]

OK, this makes perfect sense--you want to read these properties of the object through destructuring, but default to an empty object if a library you're calling out to throws null or undefined. Did you consider that case when deciding against supporting it, @allenwb ?

If we want to do this spec change, I wonder if we should just get rid of the CatchParameter production and use BindingElement instead, directly in the grammar of Catch. Would that do something different from your second proposal, @chicoxyzzy ? Did you have a particular reason why the first alternative might be preferred?

[allenwb]

When this was discussed, I think everybody assume that the exception parameter would always be object coercible. Destructuring of exception parameter is definitely useful and I'm sure that most people aren't going to add a ={} just in case. But I don't think it would hurt anything to allow it. The people who don't expect it will still get an error.

I believe all you need to do is redefine CatchParameter as:

CatchParameter : FormalParameter

My recollection is that the only reason it wasn't defined that way in ES2015 was to excluded the default value case.

[allenwb]

When this was discussed, I think everybody assume that the exception parameter would always be object coercible. Destructuring of exception parameter is definitely useful and I'm sure that most people aren't going to add a ={} just in case. But I don't think it would hurt anything to allow it. The people who don't expect it will still get an error.

I believe all you need to do is redefine CatchParameter as:

CatchParameter : FormalParameter

My recollection is that the only reason it wasn't defined that way in ES2015 was to excluded the default value case.

[chicoxyzzy]

I think CatchParameter : FormalParameter change should solve everything 👍
Should I create new proposal repo and find champion for it or just create PRs to ecma262 and test262 repos for review and further discussions?

Maybe it's a good topic to discuss on March meeting?

[chicoxyzzy]

I think CatchParameter : FormalParameter change should solve everything 👍
Should I create new proposal repo and find champion for it or just create PRs to ecma262 and test262 repos for review and further discussions?

Maybe it's a good topic to discuss on March meeting?

[ljharb]

Maybe we should start with a PR, and we can see if it gains consensus in March?

[ljharb]

Maybe we should start with a PR, and we can see if it gains consensus in March?