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: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:58:52 -0400
Message-ID: <5245AB3C.9020007@mit.edu>
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
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>
On 9/27/13 11:55 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> 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.

OK, but then it seems like the reflection on length should be useful in 
the "it should actually reflect how many arguments you need to call the 
function with" sense.

-Boris
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 15:59:24 UTC

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