- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 08:39:59 +1000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Domenic Denicola > <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: >> This is a good illustration of the kind of conflict between DOM API designers and normal ECMAScript semantics. Normal ECMAScript semantics would demand that `undefined` and no parameter be treated the same. > > That's the agreed upon behavior for WebIDL as way, however I don't > think the spec has yet been updated to match that. Yes. You should be able to write Future catch(optional AnyCallback rejectCallback); and have that cause new Future().catch(undefined) to mean the same as new Future().catch() while new Future().catch(null) throws. Spec fix coming some time soon...
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 22:40:45 UTC