- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:39:17 +0200
- To: "Allen Wirfs-Brock" <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:47:09 +0200, Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com> wrote: > In summary, operation overloading should not be part of the core > definition of Web IDL. Instead it should be made part of the language > binding for those static language that require its complexity. Removing > overloading and replacing it with polymorphic parameters based upon > union types provides an interface description is that more natural for > the majoityr of web developers who program in ECMAScript, allows Web IDL > operations to be implemented using native ECMAScript objects, introduces > no addition runtime overhead for ECMAScript, all while preserving the > ability the realize such interfaces using statically typed languages > such as Java. Would there be any observable difference with regards to what exceptions are to be thrown, et cetera? If there's no difference in implementation details I'm not sure why it matters much what notation we use. I personally find the multiple identically-named method notation to be clearer. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 12:39:59 UTC