On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Mark S. Miller<[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:31 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I guess I need to see a new patch? > > New patch is already up at <http://codereview.appspot.com/50041/show> as > <http://codereview.appspot.com/download/issue50041_8001.diff>. > > >> >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/50041/diff/4001/4003 >> File tests/com/google/caja/parser/quasiliteral/taming_test.html (right): >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/50041/diff/4001/4003#newcode88 >> Line 88: ___.handleGeneric(MyRootNamespace.SubSpace, 'attenuated', >> function (f) { >> On 2009/06/26 06:31:54, MarkM wrote: >>> >>> On 2009/05/20 20:09:27, BenL wrote: >>> > I'm not sure I like the name ... shouldn't this (and friends) be >>> > handleGenericFunc? >> >>> The naming style used by these taming functions is to use *Func only >> >> for marking >>> >>> things as simple-functions, which are first class in Cajita. All the >> >> others >>> >>> functions for taming methods assume that the function involved is >> >> exophoric, and >>> >>> so shouldn't be accessible from Cajita. Perhaps handleGenericMethod >> >> would be >>> >>> clearer? I think I'll leave this alone. >> >> "Generic" doesn't really tell me anything. handleExophoric, perhaps? > > Ah. I see the point. The term "generic" here refers to the EcmaScript spec's > use of the term to indicate that an exophoric function like Array.pop is > designed to support application to non-arrays as their this-binding.
Oh, now it suddenly makes sense! Perhaps all that's needed is an explanation of this on NiceNeighbor? > > Having said that, it's clear that my use of "typed generic" is stupid. If > it's typed, it's not generic in the ES spec sense. :-) >> >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/50041 > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM >
