- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:08:22 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26183 --- Comment #7 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> --- Thanks for the concrete proposal Domenic. What do you feel about the prototype of such objects? Do you think they should inherit from Array.prototype (like [ArrayClass] requires now), Map.prototype, etc.? Even with overridden methods that perform additional checking (like checking the types of arguments)? I suggested in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jun/0476.html that FontFaceSet shouldn't duplicate the entire Set API -- just enough to be useful, and without the Set.prototype inheritance. But if people are happy with the entire Set API and we have a plan for all new Array/Map/Set-like things, I can be convinced. > As we get proper Array subclasses, ... Where are we on this (and presumably Map/Set subclasses)? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 09:08:30 UTC