Jonas Sicking:
> Unfortunately there is no way to express this in WebIDL, so I think we
> need to describe it in prose instead. I'll raise this with Cameron,
> but I think that since at this point only IndexedDB uses these
> "static" functions, it might not make sense to add support to WebIDL.
I t
On Monday, November 1, 2010, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> IDBKeyRange is in need of some cleanup. The first
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> IDBKeyRange is in need of some cleanup. The first issue is its
> >> constructors. Currently the IDL
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> IDBKeyRange is in need of some cleanup. The first issue is its
>> constructors. Currently the IDL for IDBKeyRange, define that the
>> constructors, .only, .leftBound, .
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> IDBKeyRange is in need of some cleanup. The first issue is its
> constructors. Currently the IDL for IDBKeyRange, define that the
> constructors, .only, .leftBound, .rightBound, .bound, on object
> instances themselves. I don't t
Hi all,
IDBKeyRange is in need of some cleanup. The first issue is its
constructors. Currently the IDL for IDBKeyRange, define that the
constructors, .only, .leftBound, .rightBound, .bound, on object
instances themselves. I don't think this is intentional since first of
all it makes it impossible
