- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:44:35 -0500
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 12/3/12 8:16 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > 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? :) The problem is the functionality, not the phrasing. I have to ask: are there languages or runtime systems that have that sort of behavior on method calls (as opposed to in method implementations in special cases where the operation is nonsensical)? It seems weird to be requiring this behavior, in general. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 01:45:07 UTC