W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject]

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:41:37 +0000 (UTC)
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1402142040200.31525@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/14/14 2:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > > On 2/14/14 12:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > > These are black-box indistinguishable, as far as I understand.
> > > 
> > > That .... depends.  If there's a method around that takes a 
> > > NavigatorGeolocation parameter, that's a reasonable thing to do with 
> > > the "implements" approach but not the partial interface approach.
> > 
> > Sure. I'm talking exclusively about the [NoInterfaceObject] case, 
> > though,
> 
> Yes, so am I.
> 
> I guess the "implements" case with a NavigatorGeolocation parameter 
> somewhere is not black-box distinguishable from the partial interface 
> case and a union type parameter, except for the error message the 
> browser will produce...

In the case of Navigator*, I don't understand how the argument can be 
distinguisable. There's only one type of object per environment that 
implements Navigator*.

I agree that in the generic case you can certainly make them 
distinguishable if you want. But you have to do that on purpose.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 20:42:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:51 UTC