Re: [WebIDL] 'in'

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 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".
> 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.

Any chance I could convince you to send me a diff for that? :-)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 18:29:22 UTC