On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Joshua Bell: > >> To match ES6 semantics (which I think everyone on this thread agrees is a >>> Good Thing), then the above paragraph is redundant (and the overload >>> resolution algorithm step 4 can be simplified?). >>> >> > Jonas Sicking: > >> Indeed. I had read that as only applying to DOMString arguments, but >> on rereading I agree that that's probably not the right >> interpretation. >> >> So yes, I think the WebIDL spec is out-of-date here. I can't actually >> find where it defines that undefined is treated as "was not passed". >> I'm not sure if this is an oversight or if this isn't agreed upon >> behavior. I was under the impression that it was, but I could be >> wrong. >> > > Trailing undefineds are treated as "not passed" in the overload resolution > algorithm (step 4). There is still a note just below the overload > resolution algorithm mentioning the fact that ES6 might have been going to > change to treat all explicit undefined values as missing. Has the ES6 > change been made? > Explicit undefined will trigger default values. (see: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-July/024207.html) Rick
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 03:48:48 UTC