W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Custom elements ES6/ES5 syntax compromise, was: document.register and ES6

From: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:23:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbmOLZZX=2eua-eqpwajGVSN-QHuYdBbeKKuxRzFEkuxFVdTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
Cc: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
MyButton = document.register(‘x-button’, {
  prototype: MyButton.prototype,
  lifecycle: {
     created: MyButton
  }
});

What's the benefit of allowing this syntax? I don't immediately see why you
couldn't just do it the other way.


On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, this post does not really talk about syntax. It comes after a
>> discussion how we could use ES6 class syntax.
>>
>> The ES6 classes have the same semantics as provided in this thread using
>> ES5.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> MyButton = document.register(‘x-button’, {
>>>>   prototype: MyButton.prototype,
>>>>   lifecycle: {
>>>>      created: MyButton
>>>>   }
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this actually mean that the second argument has a property called
>>> "prototype" that itself has a special meaning?
>>>
>>
>> This is just a dictionary.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Is the re-assignment MyButton intentional? I see the original "MyButton"
>>> reference as the value of the created property, but then
>>> document.register's return value is assigned to the same identifier? Maybe
>>> this was a typo?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> document.register(‘x-button’, {
>>>>  constructor: MyButton,
>>>>  ...
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Same question as above, but re: "constructor"?
>>>
>>>
>> Same answer here.
>>
>> I'm not happy with these names but I can't think of anything better.
>>
>
> Fair enough, I trust your judgement here. Thanks for the follow up—always
> appreciated.
>
> Rick
>
>>
>> --
>> erik
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 22:24:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT