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

RE: [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:36:26 +0000
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B383829A841@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Great! Works for me--request satisfied. Thanks,

-Travis

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron McCormack [mailto:cam@mcc.id.au] 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 5:24 PM
To: Travis Leithead
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary

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 Monday, 26 March 2012 02:37:34 UTC

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