W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:24:14 +1100
Message-ID: <4F6D142E.30209@mcc.id.au>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Cameron McCormack: > It does seem like it would be reasonable to support 
"partial
> dictionaries", but dictionary members are ordered (so that any JS
> getters are run in a defined order) and having partial dictionaries
> separated out over multiple IDL fragments makes it unclear what the
> order would be.

Another request for partial dictionaries came up, so I just added them, 
solving the ordering problem by having dictionary members be 
lexicographically sorted on a given dictionary definition, but still 
treating ancestor members as being ordered earlier than descendant ones. 
  (Sorry for the non-editorial change while the CfC is going.)  Travis, 
could you please let me know whether this now satisfies your request now 
that I have marked it as "accepted".

Thanks,

Cameron
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 00:24:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC