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

Re: [WebIDL] cycles in [PutForward] chains

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 21:16:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eBF_7S5stKaionKhV5q=wQ_vKaydUsC-N6a-_TESb71w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, W3C Script Coordination <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >I think it is not merely spec authors but implementations, since the
> >language above says "when following the chain". For example step 6 of
> >[2]
> >constitutes following the chain, which is a runtime semantic.
> >
> >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#dfn-attribute-setter
>
>
> I intended the checking for the same attribute to be a compile time
> (specification time?) check. I'll clarify that.
>
> But the behaviour is well defined if you removed that restriction, if you
> follow the [PutForwards] steps in
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-attribute-setter.
>

i meant step 7 (not 6), but yes, it is well defined, though sub-step 4 of
step 7 will take a while to return if there is a cycle (and the
implementation does nothing to detect it)
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2012 03:17:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:06 UTC