- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:49:22 -0400
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 4/13/12 11:43 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > No, in #idl-nullable-type it says: Ah, indeed. Excellent. Can't wait till we have some automated tests for this in our parser.... ;) > The only reason we *might* like to allow this is if you had a typedef > for some type that was nullable: > > typedef sequence<long>? Numbers; > typedef sequence<DOMString>? Letters; > > which meant that you couldn't write for example > > void f((Numbers or Letters) x); That's a different situation, actually. That's two nullable types in a single union, which is pretty explicitly disallowed because they're not distinguishable. -Boris
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2012 03:49:54 UTC