W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: undefined values in dictionaries

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:25:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAx_0fG6W0T01xrEiUe3RKG8T7r3QUWZiCkrbSuxfkFjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
It seems that the current WebIDL behavior is the one that makes the most
sense.
Is this causing problems?

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> Consider this IDL:
>
>  dictionary Foo {
>    DOMString member = "something";
>  };
>
> and the following object being passed to an argument taking Foo:
>
>   { member: undefined }
>
> Per current WebIDL, this will be treated identically to { member:
> "undefined" }.  Is that what we want, or should it be treated identically
> to { } (which is treated like { member: "something" } in this case) instead?
>
> Or put another way, for dictionaries the current "member is present"
> indicator is what "member in dictionary" returns, not what
> "dictionary.member != undefined" returns.  Both seem valid options
> depending on the API contract...
>
> -Boris
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 00:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC