W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [WebIDL] interface objects with [Constructor] and [[Call]]

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 23:05:39 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRBCCw_4E7=C2yMObpjyG5F6AsENugKXTJOKLD@mail.gmail.com>
To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, annevk@opera.com
On 10/7/10, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Garrett Smith:
>> My statement in the previous paragraph is regarding the algorithm for
>> [[Construct]], as specified in ECMA-262. Were you discussing a
>> different [[Construct]]?
>
> Ah, I (mis-)interpreted it as a comment on all objectsí [[Construct]],
> be they native or host objects.
>

So by "[[Construct]]" you meant something other than [[Construct]]
defined in ECMA-262, or what? What you are calling "[[Construct]]" is
apparently not the same thing specified in ECMA-262 r3, is that right?
Using an existing and normatively-specified term to describe a new
routine seems like a good way to spread confusion.

Either use the existing term with its existing meaning or create a new term.


[...]

>> How can an object implement [[Construct]] but not [[Call]]?
>
> It can if it is a host object and it has a [[Construct]] which is
> different from the one defined for native Function objects in ECMA-262.
> Then there is no need for it to have [[Call]].
>

What do you base that on? And where is this other [[Construct]]
specified? It is not necessary to specify a language extension here.

Language extensions just create more disparity between real ECMAScript
and WebIDL ECMAScript. (That's bad.)

[...]

> I think this isnít strictly needed, since I believe you can have host
> objects that implement [[Construct]] but not [[Call]].
>
ECMA-262 specifies [[Construct]] which says otherwise.

Can you explain why you think this is so?
-- 
Garrett
Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 06:06:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:03 UTC