Re: [WebIDL] 'in'

On 14/07/11 1:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I sort of feel we should just drop 'in' and patch the few specifications
> that still use it. It is meaningless cruft and makes IDL fragments that
> use it harder to read.

I'm more sympathetic to this view now than I was before.  I dislike the 
current situation where it is optional, and some spec writers use it and 
others don't.

Will we ever need to add "inout" and "out" parameters?  I think it's 
unlikely, given we're targeting JS here.

So seeing no complaints, I've gone ahead and dropped "in".;r2=1.340;f=h

For the purposes of tracking the Disposition of Comments on this Last 
Call Working Draft, could you indicate whether you are happy with the 
resolution of this issue.



Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 22:58:27 UTC