- From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:27:03 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- CC: public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
From: annevankesteren@gmail.com [mailto:annevankesteren@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren > I would not be opposed changing the specification as we already allow null as a value there (which will then proceed to do nothing). But since most implementations already throw that seems like unwanted churn. It would in general be preferable for undefined and missing to have the same behavior, as in most ES functions. If implementers don't mind the churn too much, this would be a nice way to reduce developer-facing edge cases on the platform. (It seems like the takeaway here is that ? should not be used for params, and optional should be instead, to enforce normal ES semantics.)
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 06:27:57 UTC