- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:51:02 +0100
- To: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Sorry, I sent this to www-style instead of public-fx. Moving to
public-fx...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:35:19 +0100, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> The constructor for DOMQuad is currently:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/geometry/#DOMQuad
>
> [Constructor(optional DOMPointInit p1, optional DOMPointInit p2,
> optional DOMPointInit p3, optional DOMPointInit p4),
> Constructor(optional DOMRectInit rect),
> Exposed=(Window,Worker)]
> interface DOMQuad {
> [SameObject] readonly attribute DOMPoint p1;
> [SameObject] readonly attribute DOMPoint p2;
> [SameObject] readonly attribute DOMPoint p3;
> [SameObject] readonly attribute DOMPoint p4;
> [SameObject] readonly attribute DOMRectReadOnly bounds;
> };
>
> I think there are a few issues here.
>
> * All arguments are optional. This is invalid WebIDL since it's not
> possible to distinguish which constructor to use. For other constructors
> I've let the dictionary be optional and have the other constructor have
> two required arguments. We can do that here as well.
>
> * If one does `new DOMQuad(other_domquad)`, it will convert the object
> to a DOMRectInit and result in the same thing as `new DOMQuad({})` which
> is probably not what was intended. Supporting two kinds of dictionaries
> is not straightforward, though, since I think WebIDL doesn't distinguish
> between different dictionaries. My proposal to fix this is to have a
> dictionary type that can have rect members or quad members; see
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27492#c1
>
> Any opinions?
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 20:51:34 UTC