W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

[Bug 21640] Dictionaries and callbacks should be distinguishable

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:11:21 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-21640-3890-UBJsrBrX3e@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21640

Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jackalmage@gmail.com

--- Comment #10 from Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> > It sounds like in this instance "Node" style and "Web" style
> > don't agree...  It's not clear to me why we're using the former
> > for a web spec (or using webidl for a non-web spec, if this
> > is not a web spec), honestly.
> 
> Hmm... would you mind sending this comment directly to
> public-rdf-comments@w3.org so that it can be formally addressed? Thanks.
> 
> Why is object or object[] not valid WebIDL? The only restriction on arrays
> I've found in the WebIDL spec is the following: "The element type of an
> array MUST NOT be a sequence or dictionary type." Is it because object and
> object[] are not distinguishable? What could we do about that?

You can't do anything about it.  That's the whole point of "not
distinguishable" - you can't distinguish them in a reliable way.  (Node and
other JS libraries often use some arbitrary form of duck-typing to accomplish
this, but that doesn't work at large.)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 15:11:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:48 UTC