W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: no longer treating explicit undefined as a missing, optional argument

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:55:43 +0100
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v7id65d964w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 05:14:26 +0100, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
wrote:
> I've done this now; explicit undefined is not treated as a missing  
> optional argument unless [TreatUndefinedAs=Missing] is specified on the  
> optional argument, which shouldn't be used in specs unless required for  
> compatibility.

Where are [TreatUndefinedAs=Null] and [TreatUndefined=EmptyString] used?  
Also, how do I keep the IDL readable? I guess I could define a special  
type.

typedef LegacyString = [TreatUndefinedAs=Missing] DOMString?;

Though that is still not really nice.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 12:56:16 UTC

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