W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [selectors-api] Selectors API comments: section 2

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:19:42 +0200
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ud1824p664w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:56:49 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>> Anne and Ian (since your specs use overloading for optional arguments):
>> any opinion?
> Not really.
> If we want to handle languages that don't have overloading, then we need
> to make the IDL always require a separate name for the overloaded
> functions. We could just say that lack of such a name means that the
> function isn't included, and only the last function in an IDL block with
> a particular name is included if overloading isn't supported.

I would prefer to not make any changes so in case of a language not  
supporting optional arguments I suggest that language picks the version  
with the most arguments. I rather not add additional IDL information for  
such languages as they're probably a 1% use case.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 05:20:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:11 UTC