On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > 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++. > Isn't continue a _JS_ reserved word though?
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 18:41:36 UTC