Re: [whatwg/webidl] Reconsider advice to leave dictionary members optional when dictionary is used solely as a return type (Issue #1567)

annevk left a comment (whatwg/webidl#1567)

#842 touches upon this and I think there are other existing issues. Generally @domenic has been quite opposed to making return types more specific.

I think I favor being more specific now. It has a very clear benefit to code generation and it also documents the possible states a dictionary can be in a lot better. No need for anyone reading it to have to consider the "is missing" case is good.

(We can workaround this on the implementation side with `[ImplementationRequired]` and similar annotations, but this does not help other readers of the specification.)

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/1567#issuecomment-3830531842
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/webidl/issues/1567/3830531842@github.com>