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

Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:58:52 -0400
Message-ID: <5245AB3C.9020007@mit.edu>
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.

Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 15:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:18 UTC