- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:36:37 +1000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > So talking with others in e.g. TC39 it seems the general feeling is > that we should have less overloading of the type that happens in > <canvas>. Maybe we could somehow split this algorithm in various ways > and have the really complicated stuff be legacy opt-in in some manner? > (Sorry for making this so open-ended, I haven't had time to > investigate myself.) Yeah, the overloading that happens in <canvas> is particularly egregious. I'd be open to restricting certain complicated overloading to legacy APIs, if we can find a useful point to do that. There aren't actually many instances of overloading in the platform that can't be rewritten with optional arguments and union types, although I know that some specification writers like to use overloading because it's easier to read than cramming things in to a single operation with union types. We should probably start by looking at all of the current uses of overloading.
Received on Saturday, 3 August 2013 00:37:11 UTC