• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:23:53 -0400
• In-reply-to: <BAY114-W7B4D1684C663C6F17E2A299CA0@p...>
• References: <BAY114-W7B4D1684C663C6F17E2A299CA0@p...>

On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
>>> I'm not the OMG IDL specialist but could the overloading  >  
>>> issues come from there?
>
> I believe that was the strongest argument against method  
> overloading in the DOM.

Not from IDL specifically, but from the notion that not all languages  
supported overloading.

• References:
  • RE: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
    • From: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Previous by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by thread: RE: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread