05:42 | <sideshowbarker> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html#rules-for-parsing-floating-point-number-values step 16 |
05:51 | <sideshowbarker> | As far as I can understand, neither the “rules for parsing floating-point number values” algorithm nor the If the value of the element is not a valid floating-point number, then set it to the empty string instead statement specify anything about requiring the number to be exposed to JS. Certainly the requirements (elsewhere) for actually doing anything with |
06:00 | <zcorpan> | sideshowbarker: aha, yeah. Maybe it makes more sense to invoke the parse rules then |
06:02 | <sideshowbarker> | Yeah — or maybe drop the requirement entirely? |
06:03 | <sideshowbarker> | Though I guess that wouldn’t be backward-compatible now |
06:03 | <sideshowbarker> | But I mean, it doesn’t seem like anyone knows why that is-valid requirement was added to begin with, or what problem it’s meant to solve |
06:05 | <sideshowbarker> | And the parse rules already get invoked on that string — just elsewhere, later |
09:29 | <annevk> | Also implementations don't show the result of parse as per the test I showed yesterday. They only do that once you manipulate the value using the up and down buttons. That leads me to think implementations do have a non-parsing validator as required by the specification, however weird that may be. |
20:04 | <Dominic Farolino> | How is it valid to return ? ReadableStreamFromIterable(...) from https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/#rs-from? |
20:05 | <Dominic Farolino> | The ? means operations can give you a throw completion, which we're just returning instead of converting to an exception and re-throwing it to Web IDL? |
20:11 | <Dominic Farolino> | Or does ? somehow translate to "re-throw" in Web IDL world. It doesn't seem like it though. |
20:15 | <Dominic Farolino> | HTML does this too: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/C#structuredserialize |
20:15 | <zcorpan> | Dominic Farolino: does https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/notational-conventions.html#sec-returnifabrupt help? |
20:15 | <zcorpan> | and the next section |
20:15 | <ljharb> | that's indeed what it means in JS. |
20:17 | <Dominic Farolino> | Dominic Farolino: does https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/notational-conventions.html#sec-returnifabrupt help? |
20:18 | <Dominic Farolino> | Except for in the places where we invoke user callbacks. That seems to be the only place Web IDL specifically references "abrupt completions" and re-throws their completion record value. |
20:19 | <Dominic Farolino> | I'd expect generalized handling of that sort elsewhere in Web IDL, if we were allowed to return ES completion records from Web IDL methods |
20:22 | <zcorpan> | Maybe Domenic knows this better :) |
20:28 | <Domenic> | The boundary between these is not super clear but the intention is that if you "return" an abrupt completion that's equivalent to throwing in the rest of the web ecosystem |
20:29 | <Domenic> | https://github.com/whatwg/infra/pull/539 tried to do stuff with this |
20:29 | <Domenic> | A lot of places in Web IDL use the ?/! notation and thus completions |
20:32 | <Domenic> | https://github.com/whatwg/infra/issues/518 seems to express the same confusion |
20:43 | <Dominic Farolino> | I see. Good to know the intention and that this is a generally accepted convention. Thanks. |