W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2014

RE: [Bug 25986] Signify JSON as a return value

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 06:37:29 +0000
To: "bugzilla@jessica.w3.org" <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <381a4bc568894697a165e94e81b13e2c@BN1PR05MB325.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Most return values are just documentation anyway, from a normative specification perspective. (Promise<T> is the only one I can think of that has an impact.) Adding a way to document that the object is "JSON compatible" seems just as useful as any other return value.
From: bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Sent: 2014-06-05 22:08
To: public-script-coord@w3.org<mailto:public-script-coord@w3.org>
Subject: [Bug 25986] Signify JSON as a return value


--- Comment #2 from Anne <annevk@annevk.nl> ---
I don't think so. I thought it would be nice to indicate that something returns
either JSON, a Blob, or a string. `(Blob or JSON or DOMString)` seems more
clear than `any`.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 06:38:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC