W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

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

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:41:14 +0100
Message-ID: <49084BDA.4090602@lachy.id.au>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>> * I don't see any indication of what the language bindings for this 
>>> IDL should look like in languages which do not support function 
>>> overloading based on number of arguments and do not allow functions 
>>> with variable numbers of arguments.  If it has been decided that no 
>>> one is ever going to implement bindings for this specification in 
>>> such a language , it might be good to explicitly say so in the 
>>> specification so that it's clear that the problem has been 
>>> considered.  Another possible solution is to take the approach taken 
>>> in other existing DOM specifications and tack "NS" onto the end of 
>>> the name of a namespace-aware version of a method that is also 
>>> available in a non-namespace-aware version.  If the intent is to 
>>> indicate that the bindings in some languages may allow omitting the 
>>> second argument, I think that should be done via some mechanism that 
>>> doesn't look like normative IDL.
> 
> I would prefer to address this issue in the IDL, but I'm not yet sure 
> how to fix it.  The intention is for the methods to be overloaded, and 
> for implementations that don't support method overloading, then the 
> author will need to pass null as the NSResolver.

Since the NSResolver was removed, we no longer have any function
overloading, and so I'm closing this issue.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 11:41:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT