Re: [heycam/webidl] Declaring modules in WebIDL (#592)

Sure, anything's possible. It's just a matter of what's ergonomic. In that case I see a couple possible outcomes:

- The spec uses one big module block, but implementers want to continue to use single file per class (e.g. because that's easier for their tooling to process, with 1:1:1 IDL/.h/.cpp files), so they have IDL that does not match the spec. This is especially bad if they're trying to run tools that check against the spec; now those tools need to build in awareness of this situation.

- The spec uses separate module blocks per class, using `partial module` there too. Now we're basically in extended attribute land, but with an extra level of nesting. (And we have the confusion where the first class definition has to use `module`, but the others use `partial module`, making refactoring annoying.)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/592#issuecomment-444525124