- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:12:56 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 6/29/14, 10:55 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >> Are you saying we cannot have a WebIDL interface (DOMRectReadOnly) >> representing a "common base class" for DOMQuad.bounds rectangles and >> mutable DOMRects, because there are separate implementations with >> different internal state? > > > You can, but it takes some gyrations: effectively defining some sort of > virtual hooks on the parent class and implementing them in the subclasses. > > The main benefit would be that scripts would have a one-stop place to hook > getters on all rectangles by doing that on DOMRectReadOnly.prototype, but > it's not terribly clear to me how useful that is. Well, it lets people do precisely what RoC was imagining: > It's easy to imagine extending DOMRectReadOnly with more functionality common to the subclasses, e.g. area(), contains(point), intersects(rect). ~TJ
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 22:13:44 UTC