Thank you On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Gavin Barraclough <[email protected]>wrote:
> I believe behaviour is defined by the fourth paragraph of chapter 15: > > "Unless otherwise specified in the description of a particular function, > if a function or constructor described in this clause is given fewer > arguments than the function is specified to require, the function or > constructor shall behave exactly as if it had been given sufficient > additional arguments, each such argument being the undefined value." > > The missing arguments are treated as undefined, and ToUint32/ToInteger > both convert undefined to 0. > > cheers, > G. > > On Mar 13, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > > Sorry, I meant 15.4.4.10 > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote: > >> A little different then the usual fare... >> >> When interpreting (for the sake of implementation) how the arguments of >> Array.prototype.slice should be handled: is it safe to assume that >> arguments may not be defined and that all implementations are expected to >> handle this the same way, as specified by 15.4.4.9? Put another way - no >> part of Array.prototype.slice's argument handling could be >> "mis-interpreted" by an implementor, without being considered a bug, >> correct? >> >> >> I apologize if this has an "obvious" answer and I believe it does, I'm >> just hoping to get confirmation. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
