On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:56:49 +0200, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
I would prefer to not make any changes so in case of a language not
supporting optional arguments I suggest that language picks the version
with the most arguments. I rather not add additional IDL information for
such languages as they're probably a 1% use case.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
