- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:39:25 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23602 Bug ID: 23602 Summary: "optional any" is nonsense that should be disallowed Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: WebIDL Assignee: cam@mcc.id.au Reporter: bzbarsky@mit.edu QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org CC: annevk@annevk.nl, mike@w3.org, public-script-coord@w3.org Or perhaps non-optional any is nonsense? In any case, passing "undefined" to an "any" argument should presumably simply preserve the "undefined" value, and it looks like http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#es-any in fact specifies that. Given that we no longer differentiate between "undefined" and "omitted", what should passing "undefined" to an "optional any" do? It seems weird to treat that as "omitted" when the "any" type can in fact represent the value. I would argue that we should simply not have optional vs non-optional any: have only "any", where it can always be not passed or explicitly passed as "undefined", in which case it coerces the value to "undefined". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 06:39:27 UTC