W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:08:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78ii4hjb4yEh933dj9ninjs46qOxvPpTn9yYARiZ3-NODA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> It looks to me like none of the existing legacycaller consumers need
>> overloads. Given that, why do we want to allow overloads on legacycaller
>> at all?
>
> I could disallow overloaded legacycallers in the IDL, but there's too much
> useful behaviour in the overload resolution algorithm (since it handles
> argument conversion too), that I'd still invoke that.

So talking with others in e.g. TC39 it seems the general feeling is
that we should have less overloading of the type that happens in
<canvas>. Maybe we could somehow split this algorithm in various ways
and have the really complicated stuff be legacy opt-in in some manner?
(Sorry for making this so open-ended, I haven't had time to
investigate myself.)


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 2 August 2013 11:08:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC