- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:15:07 +1000
- To: Shiki Okasaka <shiki@google.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Shiki Okasaka: > The [AllowAny] extended attribute looks nice, and it will provide a > clearer ECMAScript runtime semantics. One thing still not very clear > to me is that a DOMString with [AllowAny] and a primitive type should > be distinguishable as in the example or not; I am thinking that [AllowAny] is an ECMAScript-specific extended attribute that just influences the overload resolution algorithm. As such, it wouldn’t affect the definition of “distinguishable”. So: void f(in DOMString x); void f([AllowAny] in long x); would remain distinguishable, unlike: void f(in DOMString x); void f(in any x); > maybe should we treat a parameter with [AllowAny] like an 'any' type > in an effective overload set for simplicity? It is effectively treated as ‘any’ in the overload resolution algorithm, since if the there is a true value in the list of booleans that is the third element of the triples in the effective overload set, any removals of entries from the set are skipped when looking at that argument position. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 09:15:44 UTC