Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
> <> 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