Re: [whatwg/webidl] Allow static operations to have the same name as regular operations (Issue #1097)

Just in case that my point was misunderstood, my main concern is about the possibilities that in the future we will have "Java binding", "Rust binding", etc. in addition to [the currently-existing "ECMAScript binding" in Web IDL](https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#ecmascript-binding), rather than implementation languages.  The current Web IDL supports ECMAScript binding only, but we can have more language binding support in the future.

> Response.json() is for creation, responseInstance.json() is for reading.

To me, `Response.createJson` for example looks as much "logical" as `json` does.  There must be a lot of other names with the same amount of "logical".  I personally do not like taking a risk just for this naming nor being unfair to non-JS languages.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/1097#issuecomment-1032668230
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/webidl/issues/1097/1032668230@github.com>