- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 15:24:45 -0400
- To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- CC: Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@google.com>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 5/9/13 3:09 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: > Too much complexity from overloading and too many parameters. A value > object would be a consideration for API redesign. This API can't be "redesigned". We all agree it's a crappy API, but it's widely used. The question is to what extent we can/should change its behavior in edge cases without a wholesale redesign. >> drawImage(image, 0, 0, undefined); >> >> should do. In today's world it throws. Should WebIDL preserve the >> ability to do that in that situation? >> > According to the spec, it looks like that isn't valid but I don't see > what it says about what happens when four arguments are passed. See http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-overload-resolution-algorithm which will end up throwing in step 7. > Normally, extra > arguments are ignored so anything over 9 might be predictable Indeed. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 19:25:15 UTC