If the objects are no longer live, is there a reason to keep around the DOMRect/DOMRectReadOnly distinction? On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:48:02 +0100, Robert O'Callahan < > robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >> >> I thought this had been discussed in the past, but I can't find anything >>> now. Only >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2014JanMar/0012.html >>> which >>> isn't asking for non-liveness. >>> >>> The only live object is DOMQuad#bounds, I believe. >>> >>> https://drafts.fxtf.org/geometry/#associated-bounding-rectangle >>> >>> What are the pros and cons for live vs non-live for this object? >>> >>> >> If it's not live, would you have an attribute that returns a new object >> every time, or a method that returns a new object every time, or an >> attribute (or method) that returns a new object every time the DOMQuad >> changes, or what? >> > > I don't know. Maybe we could remove it and add a .fromQuad() static method > on DOMRect/DOMRectReadOnly, that gives the bounding rectangle (new object > every time)? > > > -- > Simon Pieters > Opera Software >
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2015 22:42:15 UTC