W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Interactions between optional and nullable

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:26:46 +0100
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u4mqqwer64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:17:34 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>  
wrote:
> That only works for this very specific example. It falls apart for  
> something as simple as:
>
> interface Unicorn {
>     void neigh (optional DOMString sentence, optional DOMString grunts);
> };
>
> Let alone for anything with more than two optional parameters that may  
> or may not be of the same type, etc.
>
> Admittedly, at some point we should just use an options map. But some  
> cases seem to still want positional.

This case can be easily solved in prose. Though it might be better to  
reverse the arguments.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:27:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:02 UTC