- From: Brandon Benvie <bbenvie@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:49:50 -0700
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 10/17/2013 1:45 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> I think some example code helps this discussion. From what I can tell, Mark is concerned about code like this:
>
> ```js
> if (rect instanceof DOMRectReadOnly) {
> // ok, it's read only, so only its creator can write it
> untrustedCode.doSomethingWithRect(rect);
> // I can assume that rect has not change.
> }
> ```
>
> This code assumes that being an instance of DOMRectReadOnly means that only its creator can write it, which is what the contract implied by "read only" means. It assumes `untrustedCode.doSomethingWithRect` won't be able to modify `rect`, and thus it can assume on the next line it isn't changed.
>
> However, under the proposed inheritance hierarchy, where a mutable DOMRect inherits from DOMRectReadOnly, this code could have its assumptions violated, if `rect` was a DOMRect.
>
> This seems bad?
>
>
Great example, I didn't understand the problem until this example. I'm
also not a fan of `DOMRectRead` because that doesn't say what the thing
is, but `DOMRectReadable` does, and I think it avoids the problem.
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 20:50:16 UTC