Re: [whatwg/webidl] Definition of {} is slightly ambiguous (Issue #1344)

The _intent_ of that section, if I recall, was that the `{}` is a purely syntactic decoration that makes it clearer for readers. (See https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/602.) The sentence you quote was not meant to be a definition, but instead a statement about what that syntactic decoration "represents". In this context, "represents" means "how you should think about it when reading", not anything normative.

Note that "object with no properties" is mean to indicate an object with *no* properties, not an object which inherits its properties from `Object.prototype`.

Some more background can be found by digging through https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/pull/750 and the linked threads.

That said, it seems like there is some gap in the normative requirements here, which fails to translate the default values `{}` and `[]` into actual ECMAScript values, of the type that you could put into the overload resolution algorithm's outputs. (Arguably, it's also not very rigorous to take the Web IDL _token_ `false` and translate that into the ECMAScript _boolean value_ `false`, either.) We should probably have an explicit procedure that does that conversion between value spaces.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/1344#issuecomment-1639242156
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/webidl/issues/1344/1639242156@github.com>