- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:19:52 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss@mozilla.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> Oh, ok -- new-ish legacy. This makes the case for stronger normative >> specs against such overloading, starting with WebIDL. > > Again, WebIDL disallowing this would not have helped; the real issue > was a semantic problem. What "semantic problem" required two createTouchList functions having the same name? Isn't that a design choice? If so, then I am arguing it was the wrong choice, but "looked ok" by precedent including WebIDL support. > I'm all for simplifying the overloading that WebIDL supports, but it > wouldn't have affected this case. Whatever I'm trying to affect, the idea is norms, not outright bans or removals of code required for backward compatibility. If createTouchList is relatively new, then I bet there will be a "next time". What spec of doc should promulgate a norm that says "use a different name" for the second createTouchList? /be
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 00:20:21 UTC