Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers?

• From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
• Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:29:54 -0400
• To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
• CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <51FC16C2.30201@mit.edu>

On 8/2/13 2:02 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 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.

That's fine by me.  Gecko's implementation disallows overloaded 
legacycaller and then generates code for it like for any other 
operation, for sure.

-Boris

Received on Friday, 2 August 2013 20:30:24 UTC