On Feb 21, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> On 2/21/2014 3:08 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>> ```
>> Don't put too much weight into that. I've experiment with use the latter
>> style when define some new methods to see where it is helpfully more
>> descriptive. I just haven't bother to update all the legacy methods to use
>> that same style. At some point in the near future I wall make a pass over
>> the entire document and use consistent conventions for all function
>> signatres -- either the ES3/5 style or the default value style. Given the
>> amount of confusion the new style seems to have case, I may well revert to
>> using the ES3/5 style.
>>
>
> Isn't there a problem with the new contention because some steps are either
> implicit or aren't done? For example, `end = this.length` in the ES5 style
> would have explicit ToObject conversion on `this` before getting its length.
Right, my intend wasn't that those signature should ever be read as in any way
normative. The actual algorithm steps always explicitly describe the parameter
defaulting behavior when it is anything other than just use undefined.
Formerly we just would have used a signature heading like:
Array.prototype.fill (value [, start [, end]])
it was hoping that something like
Array.prototype.fill(value, start=0, end=this.length)
would be more usefully informative.
But in neither case is such a heading line intended to be an normative
definition or syntactically valid JS code.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
