You replied as if I took part in those conversations and forgot ... that might be the case but AFAIK (indeed) is not.
However, I am not saying that explicit undefined should not result in the default argument value, when specified, I am saying that passing explicitly undefined should not be ignored. Reading that looks like the agreement is that explicit or not, if an argument has a default, it should be used when undefined is the (un)received value and I agree on that. Here we are saying that undefined would result in "a non argument" so that whatever(undefined) would have an `arguments.length === 0` unless I've misunderstood this part of the thread (which might be as well) I won't re-quote the part in any case and if I misunderstood then all good and thanks. Cheers On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > >> I think ignoring undefined, if that's what has been decided, is a >> mistake. As easy as that. >> > > Read this thread, or past threads: > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-September/033406.html > > which links to > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023402.html > > where I called for agreement, and > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-July/024207.html > > where (find "B. Defaults") the agreement is recorded, with use-case-based > rationale. > > I sometimes think people don't want to remember what they don't agree > with. I find that I do that sometimes -- human nature, not sure if it has a > cog-psych name. > > Anyway, it's better to remember, or try to re-deduce the rationale, and > argue with that. Not just fail to see why and assert to the contrary. > > /be >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
