W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [WebIDL] Proposing changes to overload resolution behavior

From: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:09:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP045ArP6aEHa97w3-hPikZXgyW0X1KykQ1rpD9aTyeao3qFbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> 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<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?
>

I believe it is.  Thanks!

- Kyle
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 16:09:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC