- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:15:51 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20735
Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> changed:
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> ---
(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.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 07:15:52 UTC