- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:15:51 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20735 Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> --- (In reply to comment #2) > sure, but it's more consistant with the other algorithms if n is explicitly > defined in the algorithm itself. My intent was to use "blah_0..n-1" for list variables that algorithms use, and not for IDL values like sequences. So I've changed the three instances of "blah_0..n-1" that name or define IDL sequence values, but I'll leave the remaining ~10 uses of "blah_0..n-1" without an preceding definition of n when they're naming/defining lists. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 07:15:52 UTC