W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: Optional method arguments in the DOM

From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:14:28 +0300
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tb21eevz8nstxa@lomarnona>

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:00:58 +0300, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:31:16 +0200, Emrah BASKAYA  
> <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com> wrote:
>> Am I wrong to think, that this new approach is not good for existing  
>> methods, but is good only for new methods that will defined in feature?  
>> Because such new scripts utilizing this feature will not be backwards  
>> compatible..
>
> You mean future? If so, you're right. That would be the result.
>
>

Yes, I meant "future", that was a rather embarrasing double-typo on my  
side which I realized right after I sent the mail. (At least I got one  
"feature" right in there!)

BTW, I also like this notation:
myFunction("this","that",,,false,true,,5)

being able to omit variables in-between, telling the function to use  
defaults. But I don't think any party would be willing to change the way  
things work (probably requiring an ecmascript syntax change)


Emrah BASKAYA
www.hesido.com
Received on Sunday, 2 July 2006 22:14:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:58 GMT