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

Re: [WebIDL] Dictionaries and undefined

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:16:42 +1100
Message-ID: <4EFBE9AA.7090509@mcc.id.au>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Cameron McCormack:
> I was going to make this change, but I now feel a bit trepidatious about
> the issue this aligns with (explicit undefined passed to optional
> operation arguments meaning "argument omitted"), given Erik's and
> Brendan's comments above. They were in contradiction with the belief we
> eventually settled on in the thread beginning at
> http://www.w3.org/mid/4E2580C8.6050106@lachy.id.au that comparing
> argument values to undefined rather than looking at arguments.length is
> more common. I think it would be unfortunate if ES6 function argument
> default values behaved differently from APIs define with Web IDL.

In line this and the change I've just made in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2011OctDec/0380.html 
I'm not going to change how dictionary members treat explicit undefined.

Jonas, please let me know if this resolution is satisfactory.

Thanks,

Cameron
Received on Thursday, 29 December 2011 04:17:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC