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.

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 16:47:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:37:00 UTC