W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Web IDL syntax

From: Shiki Okasaka <shiki@google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:40:57 +0900
Message-ID: <2fdcc83a0907092040h4816ef5aredaf390abb01c573@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapps@w3.org
> SVG does:
>
>  http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/idl.html
>
> Admittedly this isn’t Web IDL, still OMG IDL.

I see. Thanks Cameron. So even though it seems those can be replaced
by 'implements', is it not a plan?

 - Shiki

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron McCormack<cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Shiki Okasaka:
>> 'InterfaceInheritance' is currently defined as a ScopedNameList or
>> epsilon. But in practice I don't see any web interface that actually
>> uses the multiple interface inheritance like,
>>
>>    interface X : A, B, C
>>    {
>>    }
>
> SVG does:
>
>  http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/idl.html
>
> Admittedly this isn’t Web IDL, still OMG IDL.
>
>> Is it possible to inhibit the multiple interface inheritance at the
>> Web IDL grammar level? Now that we have ImplementedOn or 'implements',
>> the multiple interface inheritance seems to be unnecessary to me.
>
> There is a subtle difference between ‘implements’ and multiple
> inheritance.  In Java, ‘interface X : A, B, C’ will result in a Java
> interface that looks like
>
>  public interface X extends A, B, C {
>  }
>
> while having
>
>  interface X { };
>  X implements A;
>  X implements B;
>  X implements C;
>
> will just correspond to
>
>  public interface X {
>  }
>
> and all X objects will happen to implement A, B and C.
>
> In ECMAScript there is no difference.
>
> Also note that I’ve dropped [ImplementedOn] in favour of the
> ‘implements’ statement, although I notice just now that there are still
> a couple of references to it that I need to remove.
>
> --
> Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
>
Received on Friday, 10 July 2009 03:41:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:32 GMT