Re: [Futures] accept/resolve/reject on a resolver don't have clearly defined behavior if no value is passed

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> FWIW, my understanding is that there's general agreement that the way
> TreatUndefinedAs is defined in the WebIDL spec is wrong and needs to
> be changed. The change is to make all optional arguments by default
> treat an explicitly passed 'undefined' to an optional argument as
> "argment not passed". Then TreatUndefinedAs can be used to override
> that where other behavior is needed (I think mostly legacy APIs, if
> it's needed at all).

Right, I'll be making that change soon.