Re: [heycam/webidl] Should EnforceRange be allowed on consts and return types? (#842) from Myles C. Maxfield on 2020-08-03 (public-webapps-github@w3.org from August 2020)

From: Myles C. Maxfield <notifications@github.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 14:58:33 -0700
To: heycam/webidl <webidl@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <heycam/webidl/issues/842/668261961@github.com>

> Consider it resolved!

I can't determine from this thread which way it was resolved. Do you think you could clarify?

As an aside: Having to have two sibling typedefs, one with `[EnforceRange]` and one without it, seems bad for clarity. And the alternative of having one typedef without it, but sprinkling `[EnforceRange]` around the spec in various places seems even worse (because it's non-obvious when you've missed one). IMO, allowing no-op `[EnforceRange]`s is valuable for type consistency and spec simplicity. Being able to put `[EnforceRange]` in a typedef, and use the typedef everywhere and have `[EnforceRange]` do its enforcement where it makes sense and do nothing where it doesn't, seems like the best outcome.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/842#issuecomment-668261961

Received on Monday, 3 August 2020 21:58:46 UTC