Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl from Andreas Rossberg on 2013-05-09 (public-script-coord@w3.org from April to June 2013)

From: Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@google.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 14:14:55 +0200
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CADjR9Np1BoU_vqgn=+AaT4DeXxRO9aa+_0FoxOh--SOi7M-BPw@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 May 2013 03:18, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> I guess let's take this requirement for ES as a sunk compatibility cost.
> Where do we go with WebIDL?

Maybe I misunderstand, but is there any reason why WebIDL needs to
care about the arguments object at all?

FWIW, I agree with your proposal about defaults.

/Andreas

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 12:15:43 UTC