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

Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:55:10 -0700
Message-ID: <5245AA5E.9090503@mozilla.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> In some ways this whole discussion about .length is pointless, since 
> in practice no one really cares about what .length is on functions, I 
> suspect....  But if we're going to have this feature (.length on 
> functions that's supposed to mean something) I think we should in fact 
> have it mean something.

People do care, when making function wrappers that must mock up .length 
correctly to inform some client that reflects on .length for whatever 
reason. This came up on es-discuss recently:

August thread: 
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-August/033004.html
July thread: 
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-July/031971.html

/be
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 15:55:41 UTC

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