- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:36:50 -0700
- To: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled languages. > >>> So all in all I believe this problem can be overcome. I prefer to focus on making the JS API be the best it can be, and let other languages take a back seat. As long as it's solvable without too much of an issue (such as large performance penalties) in other languages. > > I agree we can sort this out and certainly limitations on the implementation language shouldn't surface here. The issue is more whether folks care about a C++ binding (or some other language with a similar issue) where we'll have to have a different name for this method. > > Even though I've been bringing this up I'm ok with keeping delete(), I just want to make sure we understand all the implications that come with that. I'm also ok with keeping delete(), as well as continue(). This despite realizing that it might mean that different C++ implementations might map these names differently into C++. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 18:37:43 UTC