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

RE: Promises "if not omitted" language

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:44:35 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B4AE8F4E86E26C47AC407D49872F6F9F8785A440@BY2PRD0510MB354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Boris Zbarsky [bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]

> There's a third choice: undefined and both null trigger default behavior, functions get called, anything else is disallowed.

> Or is that what you mean by the "antipattern that DOM specs in particular have perpetuated"?

Yes, exactly.

(As another example: compare `["a", "b"].join(null)` vs. `["a", "b"].join(undefined)`.)
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 16:45:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC