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

[Bug 16536] Redundant statement

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:40:56 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1SDgkq-0003D7-H1@jessica.w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16536

--- Comment #3 from Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> 2012-03-30 18:40:55 UTC ---
Ok, I see why now I am getting generally confused (over and over again). I
think you need to make it super clear what is actually happening in this
spec... well in the ECMAScript "binding" section at least (for us noobies that
just rush into the interesting ECMAScript section). 

The assumption I was working under has been wrong: I thought the ECMAScript
binding section was about passing values and type checking them... which it
kinda is... but I was missing one crucial step: the conversion to the
abstract/language-independent WebIDL types. 

So, it should be made clear at the start of the ECMAScript binding section
that... with regards to what it means to "bind" (or whatever): 

ECMAScript goes in -> gets abstracted to the appropriate WebIDL type (or throws
TypeError if fails)... some of these types resemble ECMAScript types (e.g.,
Date)... but they are NOT ECMAScript types... they just look like them for
convenience (or really just to confuse Marcos!:)). 

ECMAScript gets requested -> Browser converts WebIDL canonical type to
ECMAScript -> out comes ECMAScript value.  

Hopefully I've now understood it correctly (and I'll stop getting things
ass-backwards!).

-- 
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 Friday, 30 March 2012 18:40:58 UTC

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