W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [WebIDL] Proposing changes to overload resolution behavior

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:08:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4EA5D3E7.6040703@mcc.id.au>
To: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>
CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 24/10/11 11:22 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> I was kind of hoping that this was already disallowed.  Making it work
> sanely seems hard.

I've disallowed this.

>     On the other hand, it's quite likely that APIs written using
>     overloading like in your quoted example will have the same behaviour
>     if you consider the null to be passed to either of the two overloads
>     (and there is some spec text in there to say that if the interface
>     definition does not explicitly define how to disambiguate in this
>     case, that one is chosen arbitrarily), so I wouldn't be opposed to
>     two nullable interfaces types being considered distinguishable and
>     just selecting the first one.
> I don't have strong opinions here either way.

I've continued to allow nullable interface types to be distinguishable 
but resolved them in the same way as for non-nullable ones.

>     Yeah, I don't think we have any need to support overloading of two
>     interfaces in the same inheritance chain.  Let's disallow that.

I've done this now too.


Can you let me know whether this is a satisfactory resolution of this 
Last Call comment?


Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 21:09:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC