W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [WebIDL] A new way to define UnionTypes

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:46:55 -0400
Message-ID: <503E477F.9020601@mit.edu>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT