W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Promises "if not omitted" language

From: Juan Ignacio Dopazo <dopazo.juan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:16:33 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+ejddWUwkN4eg0K=8G-uU1H7zz6vu4pah3scQ9+VeQi5i0HdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
2013/7/31 Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo
> <dopazo.juan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you have any thoughts on the IsCallable() change?
> We could do an IsCallable check, but that would ignore all kinds of
> erroneous values. Is that really what we want? Special casing null is
> not desired reportedly. undefined is equal to omitting it. Ugh.
> I think you're right in that ignoring non-callable values is a bad idea.
And Domenic may not like it but the truth is there's a lot of code out
there using then(null, fn). To compare with my previous email, searching
for "then(undefined" returns 10x less results:

Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 16:17:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:17 UTC