In the constructor, should the options argument have a null check as well? about proposal-intl-locale

[anba]

ECMA-402 constructors only check for undefined before calling ToObject.

https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-object-value

Yes, that's why I wrote ECMA-402. 😉

[littledan]

I thought throwing was decent behavior there, and would match WebIDL dictionaries. What else should it do besides throw?

[gsathya]

What else should it do besides throw?

10. If options is undefined, then
          a. Let options be ! ObjectCreate(null).

becomes

10. If options is undefined or null, then
          a. Let options be ! ObjectCreate(null).

I ask because I see checks for undefined or null before doing ToObject in ECMA-262.

[anba]

I ask because I see checks for undefined or null before doing ToObject in ECMA-262.

ECMA-402 constructors only check for undefined before calling ToObject.

[gsathya]

ECMA-402 constructors only check for undefined before calling ToObject.

https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-object-value

[littledan]

FWIW looks like I remembered wrong and WebIDL actually accepts null for dictionaries, with similar semantics to undefined.

[anba]

So IMO the decision whether or not null should be allowed as an options value should be decided over at tc39/ecma402 and not here. And if it should be allowed, all other Intl constructors should be changed to allow null, too.

[littledan]

Proposal: Let's disallow null for now, following existing ECMA-402 conventions, and consider permitting it everywhere in a future attempt to upgrade to WebIDL (which will change everything else too).

[littledan]

We discussed this issue in the May 2018 ECMA-402 meeting, concluding throwing. I haven't heard any concerns about this path following 402 conventions, so closing the issue.