Repository navigation
Use optional for the Blob constructor #33
Description
Currently, the spec has (boring parts omitted):
[Constructor, Constructor(sequence<...> blobParts, optional BlobPropertyBag options)]
interface Blob {
It would probably be better to use
[Constructor(optional sequence<...> blobParts, optional BlobPropertyBag options)]
interface Blob {
Note that this handles
new Blob(undefined)differently: the current spec throws a TypeError; after the change, it would be equivalent to new Blob().
CC @bzbarsky
Activity
bzbarsky commentedon Mar 2, 2016
I don't have strong views on how this should work, but yeah, the only difference I can think of is in how
new Blob(undefined)is handled. At least that's the case as long as we don't add more overloads of the constructor.annevk commentedon Mar 2, 2016
This is part of the reason why we should avoid overloads I think.
new Blob(undefined)not beingnew Blob()is weird and we should fix that here. (We cannot change it at the IDL-level unfortunately as that would break XMLHttpRequest, though if that's the only case maybe we should fix that specially somehow?)