- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:46:55 -0400
- To: Andrei Bucur <abucur@adobe.com>
- CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 8/29/12 12:40 PM, Andrei Bucur wrote: >> It's not impossible in IDL. In fact, it's remarkably easy to define in IDL. We >> just don't want to implement multi-inheritance in WebKit because it's slow. >> However, I don't see how Andrei's proposal makes the implementation any >> more efficient. >> > > The proposal tries to reduce the issue this by providing a mechanism to distinguish between the two: the "inherited" type and the "implements" type. I don't understand this part. The WebIDL already says S is an "implements" type... What are you trying to distinguish between and why? Again, WebIDL already provides the "list all things that have S on the RHS of 'implements'" information: it's right there in the IDL! > If it's actually OK to return a supplemental interface, then I suppose this proposal is useless and the differentiation between the two cases is implementation specific. Sure sounds like it to me. Returning any interface is fine, whether "supplemental" or not. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 16:47:27 UTC