- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:27:28 +1000
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Cameron McCormack: > > From some very brief testing, it seems that Firefox and Opera tend > > to throw an exception when calling a method with too few arguments, > > while IE, Safari and Chrome will assume that the missing arguments > > were the undefined value. Simon Pieters: > Hmm. What did you use as test case? I did calls like: HTMLCollection.item() HTMLCollection.namedItem() HTMLDocument.getElementsByName() HTMLDocument.getElementsByClassName() Document.getElementById() Document.createTextNode() making sure I could distinguish between that behviour and the behaviour I’d get if calling with (undefined). > I think I prefer option 2. It's easier for authors to find their mistake. > If a spec author wants the behavior of option 1, then that's possible > with [Optional]. I tend to prefer option 2, as well, for those reasons, plus it might help us if we introduce new overloadeded operations later. For example, if we had interface A { /* f1 */ void f(); /* f2 */ void f(in boolean x, in boolean y, in boolean z); }; and authors were calling A.f(something) and getting f2, then it might make it harder for us to introduce void f(in boolean w); or even void f(in DOMString w); later on. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 07:28:23 UTC