W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

[Bug 22392] maybe define .name for Function objects corresponding to operations/attributes

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:46:02 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22392-3890-NLSMufNrUr@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22392

--- Comment #2 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> ---
Thanks for the link.  I'll follow the patterns on that page.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 00:46:04 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Cameron McCormack: "Re: Extended attributes on WebIDL typedefs need to be defined better, or just dropped"
Previous message: bugzilla@jessica.w3.org: "[Bug 22392] maybe define .name for Function objects corresponding to operations/attributes"
In reply to: bugzilla@jessica.w3.org: "[Bug 22392] New: maybe define .name for Function objects corresponding to operations/attributes"
Next in thread: bugzilla@jessica.w3.org: "[Bug 22392] maybe define .name for Function objects corresponding to operations/attributes"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:13 UTC