Early error vs. error on first call to function vs. runtime error

[Oliver Hunt]

I'm generally against error on first call -- in the general case if you're able to determine a function should fail on first execution you can determine that it could fail during parsing and semantic analysis. 

--Oliver


On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:01 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:

> Domenic Denicola wrote:
>> As a user, not implementer, I really want early errors. Perf costs of startup are negligible especially long-term. By the time ES6 is in browsers computers and phones should be faster by enough of a factor to mitigate any costs, whereas omitting early errors hurts developers indefinitely into the future.
> 
> Totally agree!
> 
> Others on TC39 made this point too. We're not near consensus, unfortunately.
> 
> /be
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 4:02, "Brendan Eich"<brendan at mozilla.org>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Brendan Eich wrote:
>>>> We have not discussed error-on-first-call in this thread at all!
>>> This needs a separate thread. The idea from last week's TC39 meeting was to have not only
>>> 
>>> * Early error, thrown before any code in the Program (grammar goal symbol) containing the error, required by specific language in Clause 16.
>>> 
>>> * Runtime error, all the other kinds.
>>> 
>>> and now
>>> 
>>> * Error on first call to a function, where the function contains what would be an early error but for the supposed cost of early error analysis.
>>> 
>>> The last case is really just a runtime error: a function with what should be a static error becomes a booby trap: if your tests happen to miss calling it, you'll feel ok, but a user who tickles the uncovered path will get a runtime error.
>>> 
>>> TC39 heard from some implementors who wanted to avoid more early error requirements in ES6, or at least any that require analysis, e.g. reaching definitions.
>>> 
>>> That's fair as input to the committee, but implementation concerns are not the only ones we weigh. And we were far from agreed on adding the "Error on first call" category.
>>> 
>>> The example you imply here would be
>>> 
>>>  function f(a, b = c, a = d) {
>>>  }
>>> 
>>> and the duplicate formal a would be illegal because of the novel default-parameter syntax.
>>> 
>>> Making f into a proximity-fused bomb does not see either good or necessary. The analysis requires to notice duplicate formals is trivial, and as I keep pointing out, ES5 already requires it:
>>> 
>>>  function g(a, a) {
>>>    "use strict";
>>>  }
>>> 
>>> This must be an early error per ES5 clause 16.
>>> 
>>> Given the ES5-strict sunk cost, there's no added implementation tax beyond the logic conjoining duplicate detection with novel-syntax detection, which is trivial.
>>> 
>>> It'd be good to hear from Luke on this.
>>> 
>>> /be
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss