- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:41:14 +0100
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> * I don't see any indication of what the language bindings for this >>> IDL should look like in languages which do not support function >>> overloading based on number of arguments and do not allow functions >>> with variable numbers of arguments. If it has been decided that no >>> one is ever going to implement bindings for this specification in >>> such a language , it might be good to explicitly say so in the >>> specification so that it's clear that the problem has been >>> considered. Another possible solution is to take the approach taken >>> in other existing DOM specifications and tack "NS" onto the end of >>> the name of a namespace-aware version of a method that is also >>> available in a non-namespace-aware version. If the intent is to >>> indicate that the bindings in some languages may allow omitting the >>> second argument, I think that should be done via some mechanism that >>> doesn't look like normative IDL. > > I would prefer to address this issue in the IDL, but I'm not yet sure > how to fix it. The intention is for the methods to be overloaded, and > for implementations that don't support method overloading, then the > author will need to pass null as the NSResolver. Since the NSResolver was removed, we no longer have any function overloading, and so I'm closing this issue. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 11:41:59 UTC