- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:40:55 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27599
Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |acolwell@google.com
Assignee|adrianba@microsoft.com |acolwell@google.com
--- Comment #3 from Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> ---
I'm not sure I agree with this position. It seems annoying to me that
application code would always have to check for null AND then check for length
> 0 before it could actually use the defaults. Having it always be non-null
seems like a good way to avoid at least one of these checks.
I agree that requiring the [] is ugly. What if I made the constructor parameter
optional and provided a default of []? That at least makes it a little less
ugly.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 19:40:57 UTC