There are other alternatives, such as supporting both alternatives with two different entry points (con: API proliferation), taking an optional boolean flag indicating to return the pair (con: too dynamic a type), taking an optional outparam object (con: what is this? C?). OK, so most of those suggestions suck. :) But there are bigger questions to settle before we need to settle this one.
Dave On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossb...@google.com> wrote: > > Good point. Yet another reason why I prefer the alternate Proxy.temporaryFor > > API I sketched in reply to Dave Herman. That API does not necessarily suffer > > from this issue. > > Yes, I think that interface, while less slick, is the right one. > > Interesting. Naming aside, I also like the Proxy.temporaryFor API better. But > when Tom raised it, I argued against it for the reason he mentions: I thought > it would run into more resistance. If no one feels strongly against > Proxy.temporaryFor, I was wrong to anticipate trouble and we should do that > instead. > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
