- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:11:03 +1200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
(Missed your reply earlier, hence responding to Jonas wondering about cases when we don't want Array methods on an object.) On 1/08/11 11:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 7/31/11 7:50 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: >> Here is a proposal (which I haven't thought deeply about yet): any >> interface that supports indexed properties and which does not inherit >> from another interface > > As things stand this would include Window (but not HTMLFormElement, > since that inherits from HTMLElement, right?). > > I suspect that having Window inherit from Array.prototype would probably > not be web-compatible, but I'm willing to be proved wrong... I think that's a good enough counterexample to have to opt in or out of this functionality. >> It is then incumbent on the API designer to define index >> setters/creators/deleters >> appropriately such that the mutating Array methods make sense. > > We can't really change the meaning of indexed properties on Window, imho. Right, though I meant only if you wanted to add the mutable behaviour to the list. (For Window, you wouldn't, so you would rely on push etc. throwing.)
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 05:11:46 UTC