Re: [Futures] accept/resolve/reject on a resolver don't have clearly defined behavior if no value is passed from Cameron McCormack on 2013-06-08 (public-script-coord@w3.org from April to June 2013)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:09:31 +1000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, DOM public list <www-dom@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <51B2AE7B.9030905@mcc.id.au>

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 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).

Right, I'll be making that change soon.

Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 04:13:13 UTC