- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:13:59 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15986 --- Comment #6 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2012-02-14 21:13:58 UTC --- > I wonder, might a object defined in ECMAScript meet all the type requirements > of an Web IDL interface while still producing side-effects on certain property > accesses. Only for callback interfaces and dictionaries (for which the spec using them would in fact have to define exact behavior). > or is some form of nominal typing required. Right now the spec requires it, yes. There's all sorts of state that DOM objects of various sorts store internally but don't expose via public APIS that DOM objects need to be able to get to, such that in most cases duck typing would at best lead to exceptions thrown early on (just like nominal typing) and at worst lead to data structures in undefined states... This does complicate a pure ES implementation of the DOM, of course. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:14:00 UTC