Re: [webidl] Stringifiers should allow optional arguments

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Boris Zbarsky <> wrote:
> In cases when you do "stringifier attribute", sure.  It saves you the
> trouble of having:
>   attribute DOMString foo;
>   DOMString toString();
> and prose that says that invoking toString() does the same thing as the foo
> getter.  Which is not very much trouble, imo, compared to what a typical
> toJSON prose description would need to do.

I guess that would depend on the situation. For both it seems you
could define an abstract operation and then define the attribute and
method that have equal behavior in terms of that abstraction.


Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 16:30:38 UTC