"Exception: parameter(s) with default followed by parameter without default"
oliver at apple.com
Wed Oct 10 09:55:43 PDT 2012
On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:12 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:39 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>> 2012/10/10 Keith Cirkel <es-discuss at keithcirkel.co.uk>
>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss