- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:55:43 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, L. David Baron wrote: > > That said, if that is what it's trying to say, it's rather poorly > worded, since it refers to the binding where I think it shouldn't. > > The ability to use a function (often anonymous) instead of having to > construct an object for a single-method interface is quite useful. > > I'm not sure whether there's value in having the reverse feature in the > binding, i.e., saying that objects from outside the ECMAScript world > reflected into it that implement the one-method EventListener interface > act like functions. I don't know if current browsers do this. Well, the EventTarget interfaces are defined as taking EventListeners. So from another language, if it isn't null, you can call .handleEvent() on them. I don't see how else to define it. Suggestions are very welcome though. How would you improve it? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2005 17:55:43 UTC