- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:17:19 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Chris Lilley wrote: >> >> I think there may be some confusion about what IDL here means. In the C >> programming language, the following two function signatures are >> identical in all respects: >> >> int myFancyStandardFunction(int event); >> int myFancyStandardFunction(int evt); > > Thanks for taking the time to explain. In languages I am familiar with > (Pascal/Modula-2/Oberon/Modula-3) those would be different function > definitions. Actually in Pascal the following two function definitions: function myFancyStandardFunction(event: integer): integer; function myFancyStandardFunction(evt: integer): integer; ...also have the same signature and are interchangeable at the type level, just like in C. (Or more to the point, "in de facto Pascal implementations", because according to the two ISO Pascal standards, as far as I can tell, there is no concept of function pointer in the first place, so there is no concept of function signature.) In case you are talking about function bodies or procedure forward declarations (the two cases where the variable names do matter in standard Pascal), it should be noted that those are not relevant to this discussion as they do not relate to how IDL defines method signatures, as Maciej pointed out earlier in the thread. In short, the DOM Events IDL is not a relevant source for deciding on what to name the argument of the anonymous function block generated for code in an attribute in an XML vocabulary. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 23:17:31 UTC