[whatwg] Feedback on UndoManager spec
jonas at sicking.cc
Fri Oct 28 13:31:51 PDT 2011
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg at aryeh.name> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg at aryeh.name> wrote:
>>> It's a few extra characters. I really think the increase in clarity
>>> is worth it. Boolean parameters are much more confusing, and should
>>> be avoided wherever possible.
>> +1. I'm also OK with the argument if it's a string.
I'm ok with the string argument too. But I'm also fine with keeping it
a boolean. I don't really see the risk that people will use the wrong
interpretation of the boolean and that that wrong impression would
spread through copy-past as being a very real risk.
I agree boolean arguments can be a pain. But they are more of a pain
on the caller side than on the callee side.
More information about the whatwg