+1 On 20 mar 2014 at 18:13:34, Luke Hoban wrote: > I agree that there is significant readability value to the consumer of a > WebIDL- > based API spec if the return types of Promise-returning APIs are captured in > the > IDL. For the same reason that documenting return types is valuable to > readability even though not enforced in the JavaScript projection of WebIDL. > The IDL serves a useful documentation purpose even beyond the explicit > semantics it conveys. > > Luke > > From: Michael van Ouwerkerk > Sent: 3/20/2014 11:46 > To: Domenic Denicola > Cc: public-webapps > Subject: Re: Push API - use parameterized Promise types > So it is not normative? It seems it would be very informative though, so still > worth adding to the spec. But it seems it would be even better if it was > changed > to be normative. > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Domenic Denicola > <dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > From: Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerk...@google.com> >> Ah I didn't know it has no effect on return values. Why not? > Well, I believe it's the same with all WebIDL method return values. If you > return something that doesn't match the declared return value, that's a spec > bug, but it has no impact on anything. (This is unlike argument values, where > if > the user passes in something that doesn't match the declared parameter type > then conversion is performed.) > >
________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
