Re: [heycam/webidl] Potential naming confusion between WebIDL record types and the (proposed) JavaScript record type (#881) from Daniel Ehrenberg on 2020-05-08 (public-webapps-github@w3.org from May 2020)

From: Daniel Ehrenberg <notifications@github.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 10:01:19 -0700
To: heycam/webidl <webidl@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <heycam/webidl/issues/881/625915779@github.com>

My guess would be that most web developers haven't heard of WebIDL records, and just think of them as "objects". If it would be editorially feasible, and if we end up preferring the name "record" in TC39 (it's the best we've come up with so far), I wonder if this name change is feasible.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/881#issuecomment-625915779

Received on Friday, 8 May 2020 17:01:32 UTC