- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:11:16 +1000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org, bzbarsky@mit.edu, allen@wirfs-brock.com
On 22/08/11 2:41 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > 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. I have now made the change that makes trailing undefined values in function calls be treated as missing optional arguments. I haven't added an extended attribute yet to force undefined to be treated as an explicit argument in cases where it would otherwise be treated as a missing optional argument. We can add this if we find the need. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.390;r2=1.391;f=h Lachy, can you indicate whether this change is satisfactory. Thanks, Cameron
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 03:12:06 UTC