Re: Bare values read as "just this value please"

On 01/08/14 03:32, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> At the interim in DC, the reaction from the crowd was strongly against
> making bare values mean required/exact.  I think you'll have a hard
> time convincing everyone.  I would be interested to know, though, if
> anyone would want to just remove bare values and make JS always
> specify if it's suppose to be "please" (ideal) or "require" (exact).

I think I've said that before: I'm all for it. All energy we spend 
discussing how to interpret a bare value is to me a clear indication of 
that we should not allow them. My 5 cents.

> It sure would make the WebIDL a lot more simple :).
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Martin Thomson
> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 July 2014 17:13, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> A plain value literally is mutually exclusive with {}, almost exactly like
>>> specifying a value is mutually exclusive with providing ranges and/or hints
>>> for that value. To me it reads as "just this value please", yet users may
>>> get cameras that are not 1280 wide or 1.78 aspect here, even though these
>>> values are specified in the top "required" section.
>>
>> The top section is not "required".  And "please" is the perfect way to
>> phrase a request (as opposed to a demand).
>>
>>> Add to this that plain values in the advanced array are not ideal, and it's
>>> a semantic mess.
>>
>> I think that bare values could equal anything and we get the same.
>>
>> Besides, anything in the advanced array is closer to ideal than a hard
>> requirement, since if the set of values can't be achieved, it moves on
>> to the next option.
>>
>>> Is it truly too late to rectify this?
>>
>> It's never too late to fix actual problems.  We just have to agree
>> that there is an actual problem.  I don't see an actual problem here.
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 05:25:16 UTC