- From: Thomas Much <thomas@snailshell.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:47:43 +0200
- To: <www-dom@w3.org>
- CC: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
am 12.07.2001 14:48 Uhr schrieb Joseph Kesselman unter keshlam@us.ibm.com: > I'd say that's a binding issue -- "what does null mean in this binding" null and undefined are two different values in ECMAScript, so this could be somewhat dangerous (both values evaluate to boolean false, but if an ECMAScript implementation checks against null, it will fail when undefined is passed). Unspecified function parameters are always treated as undefined whereas the null value has to be passed explicitely. > There's a consistancy question. If we declare that undefined shall be taken > as null here, we should probably do so throughout the API. I would *not* recommend this for all places where null is mentioned. If a return value can be null (e.g. from document.getElementById), don't extend it to undefined to avoid ambiguity - let the script programmer definitely know what return value can be expected. But if null is an input parameter and it is not used to specify an empty reference but an unspecified value, an ECMAScript programmer should be allowed to pass undefined as well, because "undefined" is in ECMAScript terms the common unspecified value. bye, Thomas -- http://www.muchsoft.com/inscript/ http://www.icab.de
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 17:47:47 UTC