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

Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 22:06:16 +0000 (UTC)
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1308132205090.27623@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> 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.)

What's the kind of overloading that's bad here?

(By the way, if someone wants me to not design APIs in particular ways, 
the way to do that is to tell me why.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 22:12:27 UTC

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