- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:14:05 -0700
- To: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, DOM public list <www-dom@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net> wrote: >> In any case, the question is how to reconcile the two sanely. Once that's >> done, I fully expect the simplicity of the C++ implementation here to be >> nonexistent. > > > Ouch. But didn't TreatUndefinedAs in all its glory already do most of the > damage? FWIW, my understanding is that there's general agreement that the way TreatUndefinedAs is defined in the WebIDL spec is wrong and needs to be changed. The change is to make all optional arguments by default treat an explicitly passed 'undefined' to an optional argument as "argment not passed". Then TreatUndefinedAs can be used to override that where other behavior is needed (I think mostly legacy APIs, if it's needed at all). / Jonas
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 16:15:07 UTC