Re: no longer treating explicit undefined as a missing, optional argument

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 05:14:26 +0100, Cameron McCormack <>  
> I've done this now; explicit undefined is not treated as a missing  
> optional argument unless [TreatUndefinedAs=Missing] is specified on the  
> optional argument, which shouldn't be used in specs unless required for  
> compatibility.

Where are [TreatUndefinedAs=Null] and [TreatUndefined=EmptyString] used?  
Also, how do I keep the IDL readable? I guess I could define a special  

typedef LegacyString = [TreatUndefinedAs=Missing] DOMString?;

Though that is still not really nice.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 12:56:16 UTC