W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Non-constructible constructors and Arrays

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:38:09 +0000 (UTC)
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
cc: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107300037190.18680@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:40:46 -0700, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
> wrote:
> > That's OK. Exposing no-arg ctors as a first step does no harm, is no
> > worse than current state, and opens the door to exactly this over due
> > chunk of spec work.
> I do not think this makes sense. E.g. EventSource requires an argument 
> to its constructor that is needed for it to function. There is no reason 
> for people be able to create an XMLHttpRequestUpload object. No idea 
> what that would even do.
> If you want interfaces to gain constructors we should do so in a 
> considered manner. Not having it everywhere and then trying to sort out 
> the mess.

Hear hear. Especially in the case elements there are interfaces where it's 
not at all clear what the constructor would do. e.g. Element(), or 
HTMLUnknownElement(), or HTMLModElement().

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 30 July 2011 00:38:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:45 UTC