Re: [WebIDL] Proposing changes to overload resolution behavior

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> 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.
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/**webapi/WebIDL/Overview.html.**
> diff?r1=1.403;r2=1.404;f=h<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.403;r2=1.404;f=h>
>
> Can you let me know whether this is a satisfactory resolution of this Last
> Call comment?
>

I believe it is.  Thanks!

- Kyle