W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

RE: [indexeddb] Handling negative parameters for the advance method

From: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:29:00 +0000
To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jim Wordelman <jaword@microsoft.com>, Adam Herchenroether <aherchen@microsoft.com>, "Victor Ngo" <vicngo@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <F695AF7AA77CC745A271AD0F61BBC61E3D1FF43E@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:09 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> > Yup. Though I think WebIDL will take care of the handling for when the
> > author specifies a negative value. I.e. WebIDL will specify what
> > exception to throw, so we don't need to. Similar to how WebIDL
> > specifies what exception to throw if the author specifies too few
> > parameters, or parameters of the wrong type.
> It doesn't throw an exception -- the input is wrapped.  It basically calls the
> ToUInt32 algorithm from ECMAScript:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-unsigned-long

> This behavior is apparently needed for compat, or so I was told when I
> complained that it's ridiculous to treat JS longs like C.  It does have the one
> (arguable) advantage that authors can use -1 for "maximum allowed value".
> But anyway, yes: if your IDL says unsigned, then your algorithm can't define
> behavior for what happens when the input is negative, because WebIDL will
> ensure the algorithm never sees a value outside the allowed range.  If you
> want special behavior for negative values, you have to use a regular long.

I like Areyh's suggestion.  What if we were to keep the parameter as a long and specify in the spec that zero and negative values will not advance the cursor in any direction.  We could add something like this:
"If the count value is less than or equal to zero the iteration will not take place."
After thinking about this some more, I like this better than having the unexpected side effects of passing a negative number to a unsigned long parameter.

Jonas, what do you think?

Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 17:29:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:23 UTC