- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:23:06 -0700
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: Christophe Dumez - SISA <ch.dumez@partner.samsung.com>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>, "Edenbrandt, Anders" <Anders.Edenbrandt@sonymobile.com>, Ekberg, Björn <Bjorn.Ekberg@sonymobile.com>, "Falk, Mattias" <Mattias.Falk@sonymobile.com>, "Isberg, Anders" <Anders.Isberg@sonymobile.com>
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> Yup, as written they are optional. >> >> What we can and should do is to use prose to say that an exception is thrown if either of them is left out when the constructor is called. > If the method has required not-nullable arguments, shouldn't those be the first two arguments of the method (and the third argument being the optional dictionary stuff)? I think either is fine. I think we should use whatever creates the most understandable code for authors. It would be nice if WebIDL pointed out that this was an ok practice. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 18:24:04 UTC