W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

[Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:58:03 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1SCZid-0004N0-0A@jessica.w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16537

--- Comment #4 from Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> 2012-03-27 16:58:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > I'm not sure what you want me to return there?
> 
> It depends on your binding and DOM implementation, no?

I guess so... 

> For example, in the JSC bindings for WebKit, static_cast<I*, V.toImpl()> would
> be returned in many cases.
> 
> In the WebIDL-based Spidermonkey bindings for Gecko, UnwrapDOMObject<I>(V)
> would be returned in many cases.
> 
> In the old XPIDL-based Spidermonkey bindings for Gecko,
> static_cast<I*,JS_GetPrivate(V)> would be returned in many cases.
> 
> Basically, you return whatever your DOM implementation internally considers to
> be "an instance of I".  For the C++ DOM implementations mentioned above, that
> would be a pointer to whatever object type the implementation considers to
> implement the interface I internally.  But what you want to return just depends
> on your implementation.

Ok, I see. I havent' looked at those methods but will try to find them, but I
guess they interoperate enough that it is not an issue across browsers, right?

-- 
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, 27 March 2012 16:58:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC