Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Ojan Vafai <> wrote:
> That said, I sympathize that the overhead of creating an object or needing
> to do a string compare just for a boolean is kind of sucky.

I'd expect implementations to mostly optimize away string comparisons with
string interning, though.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <>

> That's not necessary.  There are situations when optional arguments
> make sense.  They should be avoided, though, when you expect that
> *future* optional arguments will have nothing to do with the current
> one, as otherwise you'll have to specify the "optional" argument every
> time with some null value.
> Charles gives examples of a few arguments we may want to provide in
> the future, all of which have nothing to do with whether the url is
> single-use or reusable.

This is all fine.  It's only the argument that booleans are so much more
opaque than other argument types (numbers, at least) that I find

Glenn Maynard

Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 03:24:13 UTC