New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Internal method invariants vague about exceptions #680

Open
annevk opened this Issue Aug 30, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@annevk
Contributor

annevk commented Aug 30, 2016

A number of internal methods can throw per HTML, but https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-invariants-of-the-essential-internal-methods is not clear on whether that is allowed. (Despite it already being implicitly allowed, e.g., OrdinaryDelete invoking [[GetOwnProperty]] with a ? in front of it.)

This came up in whatwg/html#1726 as cross-origin [[Delete]] always throws in implementations, even outside "strict mode", and therefore cannot simply return false.

@claudepache

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@claudepache

claudepache Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

All internal methods may throw: that can happen notably, but not exclusively, when user-defined code is triggered and throws (Proxies, user-defined accessors, etc.). And https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-invariants-of-the-essential-internal-methods applies only when the internal method returns nonabruptly: maybe that should be said explicitly?

Contributor

claudepache commented Aug 30, 2016

All internal methods may throw: that can happen notably, but not exclusively, when user-defined code is triggered and throws (Proxies, user-defined accessors, etc.). And https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-invariants-of-the-essential-internal-methods applies only when the internal method returns nonabruptly: maybe that should be said explicitly?

@annevk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@annevk

annevk Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

It would help me, I think I got myself confused a few times now reading that section.

Contributor

annevk commented Aug 30, 2016

It would help me, I think I got myself confused a few times now reading that section.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment