On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > Anne and Ian (since your specs use overloading for optional arguments): > any opinion?
Not really. If we want to handle languages that don't have overloading, then we need to make the IDL always require a separate name for the overloaded functions. We could just say that lack of such a name means that the function isn't included, and only the last function in an IDL block with a particular name is included if overloading isn't supported. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
