W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2015

[Bug 28979] New: iterable declaration and forEach ECMAScript binding issues

From: <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:20:40 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28979-3890@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28979

            Bug ID: 28979
           Summary: iterable declaration and forEach ECMAScript binding
                    issues
           Product: WebAppsWG
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: WebIDL
          Assignee: cam@mcc.id.au
          Reporter: ddorwin@google.com
        QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-script-coord@w3.org
  Target Milestone: ---

The following issues are related to the iterable declaration, especially the
associated forEach ECMAScript binding and other occurrences of "forEach" in the
spec. (This is somewhat related to bug 28978.)


In the forEach ECMAScript binding section's "If the interface has an iterable
declaration..." algorithm [1]:

1. In step 4.1 , `kValue` is assigned but never used. Is `value` in 4.2
supposed to be `kValue`?

2. It is not immediately obvious that the value in the "If the interface has an
iterable declaration..." algorithm is a pair "If two type parameters are given"
to the iterable declaration. Perhaps a note and/or reference back to [2] and
[3] would be helpful.

3. Regarding "If the interface has an iterable declaration, then the Function
must have the same behavior as one that would exist assuming the interface had
this operation instead of the iterable declaration:"
 a. What does the following text mean? Does it mean forEach’s behavior must be
the same as if forEach was explicitly specified on the interface?
 b. The text does not seem to lead into the IDL that follows it. Perhaps the
text above should be followed by something like "It has the following IDL:"


In the iterable declaration section [4]:

4. Should the first Note include "forEach" like the one in the maplike [5] and
setlike declaration sections? [1] implies it is present for the same reasons.

5. Regarding the "In the ECMAScript language binding" notes, the iterator
declaration one refers to "properties" while the maplike and setlike
declarations refer to "methods." Should these be consistent?

6. Should "key-type" and "value-type" instead be something like "value1-type"
and "value2-type"? The current names imply that one is a key and the other is a
value, but they are really just a pair of values with no meaning implied by the
ordering. Also, the naming is misleading because the keys() and values()
methods in the ECMAScript language binding don’t do what the type names imply.
(keys() returns an iterator over the indexes and values() returns an iterator
over the pair of values.

[1] https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-forEach
[2] https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#dfn-value-iterator
[3] https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#dfn-pair-iterator
[4] https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#dfn-iterable-declaration
[5] https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#dfn-maplike-declaration

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 20 July 2015 23:20:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 July 2015 23:20:46 UTC