- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:05:07 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Victor Ngo <vicngo@microsoft.com>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Jonas Sicking: >> However it appears that that extended attribute is not present in >> newer versions of the WebIDL spec. Cameron, is this something that >> is planned to be brought back? It seems like a useful feature to >> avoid having to define in prose this rather common requirement. We >> should also define which exception should be thrown if such a [NoNull] >> requirement was violated. > > I plan to make object types non-nullable by default, and to allow null > you would write “MyInterface?”. > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10640. > > I will most likely make passing in null for a non-nullable object type > result in a TypeError being thrown. Excellent! I think that should mean that no changes are needed to the IndexedDB spec at all. I can't think of any instances where we use specific interface names while still accepting null values. / Jonas / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 05:06:03 UTC