Hi David, ah, thanks. That is indeed what I was looking for. Sadly, it isn't entirely clear to me that any sort of real conclusion has been reached.
thanks, till On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:23 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Till, > > I believe Boris Zbarski touched on this recently at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013AprJun/0428.html(I > haven't read the full thread, so can't tell what the conclusion were, > but it's probably worth checking out) > > David > > Le 31/05/2013 04:33, Till Schneidereit a écrit : > > I couldn't find any precise definition for the spec term "present", so > this is not entirely clear to me. > > Example: > In step 7 of 15.4.3.21 Array.prototype.reduce, a TypeError must be thrown > if the optional argument `initialValue` isn't present. If a value of > `undefined` does *not* cause the argument to be present, that function can > be implemented with the following signature: > > `function ArrayReduce(callbackfn, initialValue = undefined)` > > If, however, the value `undefined` means that the argument is present, > the signature should probably be: > > `function ArrayReduce(callbackfn, ...rest)` > > > The question isn't entirely academic, as I'm trying to get the > self-hosted implementations of builtins in SpiderMonkey to be as close to > the spec as possible. > > > thanks, > till > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing > [email protected]https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
