- From: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:25:10 -0700
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Also, worth considering is optional arguments in the current ES6
draft. In ES6 the value undefined is not treated as absent.
function f(x = 42) {
return x;
}
print(f()); // "42"
print(f(undefined)); // "undefined"
So, to me it seems like the WebIDL to ES mappings needs to treat
undefined as present.
erik
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:57, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since arguments.length isn't friendly to strict mode, this seems to be a
>> good assumption for the future at the very least.
>
> What's the issue with "arguments.length" in strict mode? Are you perhaps
> thinking of arguments.callee and/or arguments.caller?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 17:26:02 UTC