Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers? from Cameron McCormack on 2013-08-02 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2013)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:02:45 +1000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <51FB4B85.9020003@mcc.id.au>

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> It looks to me like none of the existing legacycaller consumers need
> overloads. Given that, why do we want to allow overloads on legacycaller
> at all?

I could disallow overloaded legacycallers in the IDL, but there's too 
much useful behaviour in the overload resolution algorithm (since it 
handles argument conversion too), that I'd still invoke that.

Received on Friday, 2 August 2013 06:03:23 UTC