- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:58:52 -0400
- To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
- CC: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 9/27/13 11:55 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> In some ways this whole discussion about .length is pointless, since >> in practice no one really cares about what .length is on functions, I >> suspect.... But if we're going to have this feature (.length on >> functions that's supposed to mean something) I think we should in fact >> have it mean something. > > People do care, when making function wrappers that must mock up .length > correctly to inform some client that reflects on .length for whatever > reason. OK, but then it seems like the reflection on length should be useful in the "it should actually reflect how many arguments you need to call the function with" sense. -Boris
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 15:59:24 UTC