April 10 2014 Meeting Notes

[Kevin Smith]

>
> In this case we have try-finally statements as an existing feature.  The
> semantics of this feature is a bounded execution scope with a cleanup
> action on completion. This feature is widely used and has always been
> internally consistent and reliable, expect for catastrophic external
> failure or intervention (ie, externally imposed process termination, power
> failure, etc).  People use it for all sorts of things, including bounded
> resource management.
>

Zeroing in on "cleanup action on completion":  don't co-routines by nature
prohibit us from reasoning in this way about completion?  It seems to me
that this shift is broader than just `try/finally`, although I agree that
`try/finally` shows some particularly acute symptoms.

And I also agree that we should not provide gratuitous footguns.
 Unfortunately, though, I'm having a hard time forming an opinion on how
disallowing `try/yield/finally` would balance out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140426/fd504f23/attachment.html>