- From: Andreas Gal <gal@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:03:46 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Aug 25, 2011, at 2:40 AM, Cameron McCormack 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? I don't think the specific order matters, but consistency does, since it is visible in practice. We could for example specify that the order of properties in IDL is the "creation order" of attributes. That would result in a de-facto consistency across all browsers without really constraining what TC39 might do to for-in in the future. Andreas
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 15:04:22 UTC