- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:23:25 +1200
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: pettay@mappi.helsinki.fi, Savil Srivastava <Savil.Srivastava@microsoft.com>, Web Performance Working Group WG <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Olli Pettay: > > Supporting objects allows one to easily handle the state related to > > callback handling. Alex Russell: > I'm really not seeing the value since unless the function is bound > somehow, the calling context is going to get reset inside the > callback. The sample function is called with the object as the this value. > The meta point for me, however, is that WebIDL shouldn't be serving > Java at all. We shouldn't allow a binding language that statistically > nobody uses make things worse for JavaScript in any way. I don’t think the decision here about whether only Function objects or any object with an appropriate property on it can serve as a callback is influenced at all by other binding languages. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 00:24:15 UTC