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

[Bug 16536] Redundant statement

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:21:01 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1SDm3x-0001Mr-TD@jessica.w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16536

--- Comment #4 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2012-03-31 00:20:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 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. 

Yeah, that's exactly right.

> 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!:)). 

Yep!  I considered using another name than Date for exactly that reason, but
Ian thought it would be less confusing for authors to see Date there given that
it's actually going to be an ES Date object that gets returned.

> 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!).

I believe you have. :)

-- 
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 Saturday, 31 March 2012 00:21:05 UTC

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