-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 6/15/2010 12:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro > <pablo.cas...@microsoft.com <mailto:pablo.cas...@microsoft.com>> > wrote: > >>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the > IDL that different names are used for scripted languages and for > compiled languages. > > > >>> So all in all I believe this problem can be overcome. I > prefer to focus on making the JS API be the best it can be, and > let other languages take a back seat. As long as it's solvable > without too much of an issue (such as large performance > penalties) in other languages. > > > > I agree we can sort this out and certainly limitations on the > implementation language shouldn't surface here. The issue is > more whether folks care about a C++ binding (or some other > language with a similar issue) where we'll have to have a > different name for this method. > > > > Even though I've been bringing this up I'm ok with keeping > delete(), I just want to make sure we understand all the > implications that come with that. > > I'm also ok with keeping delete(), as well as continue(). This > despite > realizing that it might mean that different C++ implementations > might > map these names differently into C++. > > > Isn't continue a _JS_ reserved word though? Not as a property on the primary expected target language, EcmaScript 5. - -- Kris Zyp SitePen (503) 806-1841 http://sitepen.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwXy9YACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAwlAwCguToFcLXY5FgGyL/7acDr4LKR LF0Anj96a/A6ChOeXCMHzlTv8A1xnhZy =TKKA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
