-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
add error forwarding #129
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
Comments
+1, when we say error forwarding do we mean these errors would propagate up and down the chain? |
Yeah working on a pull to io On Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 4:14 AM Sam Newman [email protected] wrote:
|
Do we still think this is a good idea? We had planned to do this years ago but since then a lot of work has gone in to how we encapsulate errors, I wonder if this is still a good idea or not. |
As @calvinmetcalf mentioned this would keep node streams more in "sync" with whatwg streams no? And i think thats a good idea. Maybe a better question would be why would one not want to pass the error along? I suspect it would only increase usability. |
I don't think think it makes sense to forward |
Actually it might be a good idea to make readable.pipe(writable, { chain: true }) Not sure if |
@yoshuawuyts I like you idea :-). What about |
I think short, memorable names might be better, |
so there are some problems with adding the option. |
+1 |
I think this is superseded by #283. |
add the ability to forward errors when we pipe, probably want it to be opt in at first, this would be both useful and in line with how whatwg streams work
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: