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

Re: Feature-detectable API extensions?

From: Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:32:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD649j6rxQK+fi_RA-DTfHzofTH_QJumu9zaew4VZfuLaR2o6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <
ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 14:28 , Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> > On 8/27/13 5:21 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> >>    In this case, yes: passing "" or 0 would throw.
> >>
> >> Is Norbert asking about the existing IDBCursor continue() method?
> >
> > I assumed he meant the new signature.
> >
> > The old signature ignores the second arg completely.
> >
> > The new signature will throw for some values of the second arg.
> >
> > So if you pass one of those values and get an exception, you're looking
> at the new signature.
>
> Exactly.
>

Ah, sorry - yes, that makes sense if the second argument was a dictionary
as I showed in the straw man. Yet another suggested permutation of the API
just had the proposed new signature as (optional any, optional any) and
that was stuck in my head.
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 21:33:22 UTC

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