- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:12:25 +1200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 00:12:53 UTC
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > section 13: > > I don't think WebIDL allows overloading of functions based on the return > value. (overloading based on the arguments is allowed). > > Can the "promises" versions have different names, or the whole interface > have a different name? > Why don't we just get rid of the non-Promises API? I think at this point it's totally OK for specs to depend on Promises. Rob -- oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o oioso oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro ooofo otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.
Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 00:12:53 UTC