- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:01:35 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20735 --- Comment #4 from Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> --- (In reply to comment #3) > (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. mkay, but note that the 0..n-1 seems overly fancy (when you are already working on n in the algorithms) and it's already confused me during implementation. Please try to avoid unnecessary "mathematical-looking" constructs in the spec to keep the spec as easy to read as possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 14:01:39 UTC