W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:23:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CABirCh-rGZ3y0mGd_R_sWhvX8t+UsFuEpM3KFVc=6hqhL=njOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> That said, I sympathize that the overhead of creating an object or needing
> to do a string compare just for a boolean is kind of sucky.
>

I'd expect implementations to mostly optimize away string comparisons with
string interning, though.


On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> That's not necessary.  There are situations when optional arguments
> make sense.  They should be avoided, though, when you expect that
> *future* optional arguments will have nothing to do with the current
> one, as otherwise you'll have to specify the "optional" argument every
> time with some null value.
>
> Charles gives examples of a few arguments we may want to provide in
> the future, all of which have nothing to do with whether the url is
> single-use or reusable.
>

This is all fine.  It's only the argument that booleans are so much more
opaque than other argument types (numbers, at least) that I find
unconvincing.

-- 
Glenn Maynard
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 03:24:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT