- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:56:49 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > Anne and Ian (since your specs use overloading for optional arguments): > any opinion? Not really. If we want to handle languages that don't have overloading, then we need to make the IDL always require a separate name for the overloaded functions. We could just say that lack of such a name means that the function isn't included, and only the last function in an IDL block with a particular name is included if overloading isn't supported. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 23:57:24 UTC