- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:19:42 +0200
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:56:49 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > 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. I would prefer to not make any changes so in case of a language not supporting optional arguments I suggest that language picks the version with the most arguments. I rather not add additional IDL information for such languages as they're probably a 1% use case. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 05:20:36 UTC