- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:20:44 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23564 --- Comment #2 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> --- > So in particular, omitted would be true and undefined would be false. Yes. > It seems odd to define that via an overload. I guess TreatUndefinedAs might be > going away given that we do not need it elsewhere so maybe an overload is the > way to go, but then we do not want to spread overload usage either... Sure, but I think it's safe to say that the set of cases that want to treat omitted as true and undefined as false is small and nonincreasing... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 13:20:49 UTC