Re: [whatwg/encoding] Editorial: require returned dictionary members (#185)

Yeah, I also like it for the reason that these are basically asserts on the return value.

If I take @domenic's stance to an extreme we'd only need to document the return type as being a dictionary, but not any particular dictionary. Mainly so that you can go from an Infra map to a dictionary to JavaScript. But this specification (and others) already document members, so we might as well document more details of those members.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/pull/185#issuecomment-531207319