- From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
- Date: 2006年7月03日 01:14:28 +0300
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <op.tb21eevz8nstxa@lomarnona>
On 2006年7月03日 01:00:58 +0300, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On 2006年6月16日 00:31:16 +0200, Emrah BASKAYA > <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com> wrote: >> Am I wrong to think, that this new approach is not good for existing >> methods, but is good only for new methods that will defined in feature? >> Because such new scripts utilizing this feature will not be backwards >> compatible.. > > You mean future? If so, you're right. That would be the result. > > Yes, I meant "future", that was a rather embarrasing double-typo on my side which I realized right after I sent the mail. (At least I got one "feature" right in there!) BTW, I also like this notation: myFunction("this","that",,,false,true,,5) being able to omit variables in-between, telling the function to use defaults. But I don't think any party would be willing to change the way things work (probably requiring an ecmascript syntax change) Emrah BASKAYA www.hesido.com
Received on Sunday, 2 July 2006 22:14:37 UTC