no-reserved-keys rule about redux-actions HOT 12 CLOSED

I see your point, but I would prefer to keep calling it throw() because it matches the ES6 generator interface.

from redux-actions.

Oh wait you're suggesting an alias. Yeah let's think about that.

from redux-actions.

@acdlite how about reject() ?

from redux-actions.

I was thinking onThrow().

from redux-actions.

I'm fine with both :) reject() is a tad shorter though :P

from redux-actions.

+1 reject()

from redux-actions.

Yeah it's shorter, but it's a totally different word :D It shouldn't seem like a different thing. And I would really prefer everyone use throw(), anyway.

from redux-actions.

I was just using it because for promises throw() and reject() are almost synonyms. But i don't mind throw() in general. especially because Babel already quotes it by default :)

from redux-actions.

Would be nice with an alias, even though I definitely see the point about keeping with the generator interface. Kind of painful to have to disable linting rules though.

from redux-actions.

@acdlite @johanneslumpe do we want to move forward with the alias?

from redux-actions.

@lukewestby I personally don't mind having an alias. I'm not really using this lib anymore though. I have converted to just using arrow functions and implicit returns.

from redux-actions.

Since this discussion hasn't come an result, I'll close it for now. Can be reopened if necessary.

from redux-actions.