- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:27:47 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org, bzbarsky@mit.edu, allen@wirfs-brock.com
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 06:41:12 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > On 9/08/11 10:14 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote: >> I'll investigate existing APIs to see how many we would need to annotate >> with "explicit undefined doesn't mean missing argument" behaviour. > > I started doing this today. I got through half of the list of HTML5 > APIs where you have overloading or optional arguments, and I did not > find any instance of an implementation treating undefined as an omitted > optional argument. However, many of them either have non-interoperable > behaviour across implementations, or have behaviour such that omitting > the argument has the same result as coercing undefined to the argument > type and treating it as a specified argument. So I think going ahead > with this change, and annotating those that really require undefined not > to be treated as an omitted optional argument, is feasible. FWIW, today I changed XMLHttpRequest's open() from being overloaded to simply having optional arguments. I hope they are considered identical. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 10:28:40 UTC