Re: How to correctly spec sequences requiring an iterable

On 9/11/14, 10:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Following up on this: per more recent discussion, I'm going to make this
> more like Array.from instead. So replace step 3 with "If the value is
> undefined, move on to the next union member".

And the spec has now been updated accordingly.

Note that Gecko has been shipping the previous behavior I suggested, but 
it's a simple change to update to the new one.

Looking forward to other implementations updating to 
sequence-as-iterable as well.


Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 03:43:54 UTC