Have document.evaluate() report TypeError over incorrect resolvers.

Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h

Index: Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h
diff --git a/Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h b/Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h
index eb7421eec672b41be4fbc8f2dc669b4a1e2b79ea..2b902e62cb2377897393464e099d22bc0c71b02c 100644
--- a/Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h
+++ b/Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h
@@ -42,7 +42,9 @@ public:
     static String failedToGet(const String& property, const String& type, const String& detail);
     static String failedToSet(const String& property, const String& type, const String& detail);
     static String failedToDelete(const String& property, const String& type, const String& detail);
-    static String incorrectPropertyType(const String& property, const String& detail);
+
+    static String incorrectArgumentType(int argumentIndex, const String& detail = String());
+    static String incorrectPropertyType(const String& property, const String& detail = String());

[Mike West, 2013/12/10 11:20:42]

Hrm. I'm not convinced that we want to let people avoid adding a detail string
to either of these items. It seems friendlier to the web developer if the
callsite has to say something about what it was expecting.

 
     // If  > 0, the argument index that failed type check (1-indexed.)
     // If == 0, a (non-argument) value (e.g., a setter) failed the same check.