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

Re: Contacts API -- attribute order

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:56:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CABHxS9igNrWHFLo6B04r694osGDRyy0LLpB4FYFzPCjU13JJjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Andreas Gal <gal@mozilla.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
[+es-discuss]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> +cc public-script-coord
> -cc,+bcc public-device-apis
>
> On 25/08/11 7:38 PM, Andreas Gal wrote:
>
>> We should take this to the WebIDL list then. The order definitely
>> matters in practice for interoperability if people do for-in over DOM
>> objects. I had to debug breakage due to shifting properties around in
>> our DOM IDL before.
>>
>
> OK.  I avoided specifying enumeration order to avoid stepping on the
> ECMAScript spec's given that it was likely to specify an order in the
> future.  Do you know what kind of order is required?
>

+1 to leaving this issue to a future EcmaScript spec to pin down. The
current strawman, which is unfortunately not on the table for ES6, is <
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:enumeration>. I encourage
implementors to follow this when possible and post to the list cases where
it isn't. If we can get all implementors on board with this, as least for
strict or ES6 for/in loops, then it becomes de facto and would become a
shoo-in for ES7.

Andreas, IIRC, you ran into a case in *Monkey where you did decide to
deviate from this strawman for efficiency reasons. Could you explain the
issue? Is there a standardizable variant of that strawman that you could
implement efficiently and that we could get broad agreement on? If so, we
should try.

-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 14:56:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC