- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:42:27 -0700
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: Jet Villegas W3C <w3c@junglecode.net>, Cameron McCormack <heycam@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mozilla.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> Making DOMPoint a dictionary, as currently proposed, is a problem since it
> means other objects (such as the proposed DOMQuad) can't have DOMPoints as
> attributes. I'm assuming the WebIDL restriction that attributes can't be
> dictionaries is not easily removed.
Yes, this is fine with me.
> I think we probably should make DOMPoint a regular interface. For methods
> that take DOMPoints as parameters, we can retain the convenient literal
> syntax for points by adding a DOMPointLiteral dictionary type and using
> union types, e.g.
> DOMPoint convertPoint((DOMPoint or DOMPointLiteral) point);
You don't even need to do that - as long as their
attribute/dict-member names match, a DOMPoint *is* a DOMPointLiteral,
so you can just write the function signature as:
DOMPoint convertPoint(DOMPointLiteral point)
~TJ
Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 16:43:18 UTC