Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 


On 6/15/2010 12:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
>     <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com <mailto:Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>>
>     wrote:
>     >>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the
>     IDL that different names are used for scripted languages and for
>     compiled languages.
>     >
>     >>> So all in all I believe this problem can be overcome. I
>     prefer to focus on making the JS API be the best it can be, and
>     let other languages take a back seat. As long as it's solvable
>     without too much of an issue (such as large performance
>     penalties) in other languages.
>     >
>     > I agree we can sort this out and certainly limitations on the
>     implementation language shouldn't surface here. The issue is
>     more whether folks care about a C++ binding (or some other
>     language with a similar issue) where we'll have to have a
>     different name for this method.
>     >
>     > Even though I've been bringing this up I'm ok with keeping
>     delete(), I just want to make sure we understand all the
>     implications that come with that.
>
>     I'm also ok with keeping delete(), as well as continue(). This
>     despite
>     realizing that it might mean that different C++ implementations
>     might
>     map these names differently into C++.
>
>
> Isn't continue a _JS_ reserved word though?

Not as a property on the primary expected target language, EcmaScript 5.

- -- 
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iEYEARECAAYFAkwXy9YACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAwlAwCguToFcLXY5FgGyL/7acDr4LKR
LF0Anj96a/A6ChOeXCMHzlTv8A1xnhZy
=TKKA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----