On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:12 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:39 AM, David Bruant wrote: > >> 2012/10/10 Keith Cirkel <[email protected]> >> You /are/ actually passing in a second argument though, your second argument >> is `undefined`. Default arguments aren't meant to replace `undefined` >> values, they're meant to be permissible for omission. > > > No, that isn't what the draft specification now says. It was originally that > way, but TC39 based upon discussions here, decided that an explicit undefined > argument value triggers default value initialization. I still disagree with this decision, but from an implementation standpoint the cost difference is fairly minimal (there is of course an additional runtime performance cost, but i suspect it would be negligible). I guess it depends on whether the committee feels that we should be encouraging the use of null over undefined in new syntactic constructs. --Oliver
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
