- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:54:32 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12248 --- Comment #36 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-03-16 22:54:32 UTC --- I think it's worth looking at both of the two options Allen and Jonas mention: * either allow IDL operations to be declared to take named arguments, so that in the ECMAScript language binding that would correspond to taking an additional object argument holding the named arguments (and so that other language bindings could utilise their native mechanisms for named arguments); or * add a dictionary type to Web IDL, which you would use directly as an argument type (similarly to how [Callback] interfaces are being used for this purpose in some specs), and which would let you define the types of individual values in it. We might want both. I like the first approach since it can map more easily to native mechanisms in other languages, but: * what if a specification author wants to have an operation that takes more than one set of named arguments (for whatever reason; I don't know that we have any need for this currently, though)? * what if a specification author wants to have the named arguments object not as the final argument (which is what I'm assuming we'd require)? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:54:34 UTC