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

[Bug 23532] Dealing with undefined

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:09:34 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23532-3890-p2jbgBZYD5@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23532

--- Comment #36 from Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Glenn Maynard from comment #35)
> (In reply to Rick Waldron from comment #34)
> > (In reply to Glenn Maynard from comment #33)
> > > Verifying the number of parameters is not "excess validation".  Verifying
> > > the number of parameters is a useful and well-understood part of modern
> > > dynamic languages.  See Python for a good example.
> > 
> > If a specific number of arguments is necessary for the given function to
> > maintain its invariants, then the function should be defined with named
> > formal parameters.
> 
> I can't tell what your reply has to do with what I wrote.  Named formal
> parameters are what we're discussing.  Please clarify.

You said: 

> Verifying the number of parameters is not "excess validation".  Verifying
> the number of parameters is a useful and well-understood part of modern
> dynamic languages.  See Python for a good example.

Specifically: 

> Verifying the number of parameters

Which I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that you meant eg. defining conditional
semantics of a function based on arguments.length. If that's what you meant,
then I'm arguing this approach is brittle and error prone, versus defining
conditional semantics by naming your parameters and observing their argument
value.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 14:09:37 UTC

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