- From: Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>
- Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:31:34 -0800
- To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
- Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2014 01:32:03 UTC
01 марта 2014 г., в 14:53, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> написал(а): > But is there really any use case besides "it's silly and saves the developer a few characters"? Both are pretty important considerations in API design, I think. When all one needs is to compute a hash, why expose them to the full complexity of Algorithm being a dictionary? > It seems like apps are going to define aliases anyway, so there's not much point to the browser doing it as well. I now see what you mean when saying that there are no aliases defined - I just overlooked it when the spec draft changed. It used to say that passing "foo" is equivalent to passing {name: "foo"}. Looks like this feature was quietly removed when adding the provision for a more general mechanism. I suggest bringing this back as is, regardless of whether there are any more aliases to define. - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2014 01:32:03 UTC