- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:22:50 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Brendan Eich: >> Agreed. Ad-hoc argument processing in JS today may use >> arguments.length, or undefined testing (possibly even >> null-or-undefined testing via " == null"). I continue to think >> arguments.length is the best way for IDL. Jonas Sicking: > This doesn't match the feedback we got in the thread where we > decided on undefined-checking rather than arguments.length. > > I don't really have a strong feeling either way as I don't have > enough experience with how JS developers think. Yes, we did just resolve as part of the previous Last Call comment resolution lot that undefined is treated as a missing argument. Making dictionary members treat undefined as an explicit value would be inconsistent with that. I'd rather have both be the same, and given the reasonably extensive discussion that were already had with the function calling case, I'd lean on the side of making undefined the same as an unspecified dictionary member.
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 22:23:38 UTC