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 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC