- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:35:18 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 7/11/14, 12:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> In cases when you do "stringifier attribute", sure. It saves you the >> trouble of having: >> >> attribute DOMString foo; >> DOMString toString(); >> >> and prose that says that invoking toString() does the same thing as the foo >> getter. Which is not very much trouble, imo, compared to what a typical >> toJSON prose description would need to do. > > I guess that would depend on the situation. For both it seems you > could define an abstract operation and then define the attribute and > method that have equal behavior in terms of that abstraction. The toJSON case doesn't usually have an attribute that produces the JSON stringification (in fact, I can't think of any cases when that would be desirable), so you'd need to create the (fairly complicated!) abstract operation just for the toJSON to use. -Boris
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 16:35:48 UTC