- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:58:58 +0200
- To: Shiki Okasaka <shiki@google.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Jun 23, 2009, at 05:41 , Shiki Okasaka wrote:
>>> If we are breaking syntax, then it seems more compelling to make
>>> “DOMString” be “string”.
>>>
>>> Maybe we could drop the “in” keyword. Seems better to stick with
>>> plain “in” arguments, for compatibility across language bindings,
>>> than to also allow “out” and “inout” ones.
>>
>> I'd vote for not changing these, because we already have a lot of
>> IDL out
>> there and it would be a pain to fix it all.
>
> Can we make "in" optional so that new interfaces can be defined
> without using "in"? It seems very easy to forget to specify "in" for
> each parameter in Web IDL.
I like that option, the ability to not use "in" would be really nice
to have.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 07:59:26 UTC