- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:09:02 +1200
- To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- CC: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
On 1/08/11 12:04 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: > But for constructors that are specified, what happens when an argument > is missing should be defined, even if to say throw a DOMException > TYPE_MISMATCH_ERR (or possibly TypeError if that is not too radical an > idea). That at least avoids the opportunity for interpreting whether > or not `undefined` should be "" or "undefined", an error, etc. > > For API consistency, EcmaScript internal operations should be used for > type conversion, i.e. ToBoolean, ToString, etc. See also: > http://es5.github.com/#x9 Indeed, and that should already be the case, as arguments in constructor invocations are treated/converted just as those in operation invocation are.
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 00:09:49 UTC