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

Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:23:23 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLabcxBEPXbrFNFcZ-QGaCvZ-CsaOSyzDY4gCRrhB7g0zA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> Robert, I am confused what purpose the inheritance serves in your
> proposal. The purpose of inheritance in JS is usually to allow you to apply
> superclass methods (or in this case, accessor) to the base class.


You don't mean "base class" here, do you? Normally "base class" means the
same thing as superclass.


> But that does not work if your model is to *remove* permissions in the
> subclass; it would mean you could use the superclass's setter to mutate the
> supposedly-immutable subclass.


My proposal doesn't do that. Client code has no permission to mutate state
via DOMRect.

I am trying to understand what benefit this inheritance hierarchy has over
> a non-hierarchy, and simply can't see one.
>

We can put functionality common to mutable and immutable rects in DOMRect.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
*
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 22:23:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC