- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:08:55 -0700
- To: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 24/10/11 11:22 AM, Kyle Huey wrote: > I was kind of hoping that this was already disallowed. Making it work > sanely seems hard. I've disallowed this. > On the other hand, it's quite likely that APIs written using > overloading like in your quoted example will have the same behaviour > if you consider the null to be passed to either of the two overloads > (and there is some spec text in there to say that if the interface > definition does not explicitly define how to disambiguate in this > case, that one is chosen arbitrarily), so I wouldn't be opposed to > two nullable interfaces types being considered distinguishable and > just selecting the first one. > > > I don't have strong opinions here either way. I've continued to allow nullable interface types to be distinguishable but resolved them in the same way as for non-nullable ones. > Yeah, I don't think we have any need to support overloading of two > interfaces in the same inheritance chain. Let's disallow that. I've done this now too. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.403;r2=1.404;f=h Can you let me know whether this is a satisfactory resolution of this Last Call comment? Thanks, Cameron
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 21:09:44 UTC