W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: IndexedDB: undefined parameters

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:32:01 +1100
Message-ID: <50763DB1.1080905@mcc.id.au>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Joshua Bell:
>> To match ES6 semantics (which I think everyone on this thread agrees is a
>> Good Thing), then the above paragraph is redundant (and the overload
>> resolution algorithm step 4 can be simplified?).

Jonas Sicking:
> Indeed. I had read that as only applying to DOMString arguments, but
> on rereading I agree that that's probably not the right
> interpretation.
> So yes, I think the WebIDL spec is out-of-date here. I can't actually
> find where it defines that undefined is treated as "was not passed".
> I'm not sure if this is an oversight or if this isn't agreed upon
> behavior. I was under the impression that it was, but I could be
> wrong.

Trailing undefineds are treated as "not passed" in the overload 
resolution algorithm (step 4).  There is still a note just below the 
overload resolution algorithm mentioning the fact that ES6 might have 
been going to change to treat all explicit undefined values as missing. 
  Has the ES6 change been made?
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 03:32:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:49 UTC