W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [WebIDL] Handling undefined in Overload Resolution Algorithm

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:41:12 +1200
Message-ID: <4E51DDE8.5040908@mcc.id.au>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org, bzbarsky@mit.edu, allen@wirfs-brock.com
On 9/08/11 10:14 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> I'll investigate existing APIs to see how many we would need to annotate
> with "explicit undefined doesn't mean missing argument" behaviour.

I started doing this today.  I got through half of the list of HTML5 
APIs where you have overloading or optional arguments, and I did not 
find any instance of an implementation treating undefined as an omitted 
optional argument.  However, many of them either have non-interoperable 
behaviour across implementations, or have behaviour such that omitting 
the argument has the same result as coercing undefined to the argument 
type and treating it as a specified argument.  So I think going ahead 
with this change, and annotating those that really require undefined not 
to be treated as an omitted optional argument, is feasible.
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 04:41:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC