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

Re: IndexedDB: undefined parameters

From: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:48:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHfnhfpqOH-TVsLRU9Gmh0e7SoPT-qPNERn+10bPhZr-iCWfgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>, Odin HÝrthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> 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 So yes, I think the WebIDL spec is out-of-date here.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?
>


Explicit undefined will trigger default values. (see:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-July/024207.html)

Rick
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 03:48:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:55 GMT