W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [Indexeddb} Bug # 9653 - nullable violations on parameters

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:05:07 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=VqDgX5gSbVJRzwLyzWN8aDTN2NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Victor Ngo <vicngo@microsoft.com>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking:
>> However it appears that that extended attribute is not present in
>> newer versions of the WebIDL spec. Cameron, is this something that
>> is planned to be brought back? It seems like a useful feature to
>> avoid having to define in prose this rather common requirement. We
>> should also define which exception should be thrown if such a [NoNull]
>> requirement was violated.
>
> I plan to make object types non-nullable by default, and to allow null
> you would write “MyInterface?”.
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10640.
>
> I will most likely make passing in null for a non-nullable object type
> result in a TypeError being thrown.

Excellent! I think that should mean that no changes are needed to the
IndexedDB spec at all. I can't think of any instances where we use
specific interface names while still accepting null values.

/ Jonas

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 05:06:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:44 GMT