- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:16:47 +1100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 4/12/12 12:11 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Hmm. That, as phrased, is pretty complicated to implement in a > performant way, if the two methods/getters/setters have the same > signatures... Since I'm not terribly familiar with our generated bindings code, I'm not really sure what that would be. Is there a phrasing that would not be so complicated but does the same thing? :)
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 01:17:21 UTC