W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: [geometry] Remove liveness (was: Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement: Geometry Interfaces)

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:48:02 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYVkyjFgCb1yjd=89zBQbF+xwmrf_nPkQVKoZ0W+QOG5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: Jinho Bang <jinho.bang@samsung.com>, Philip Rogers <pdr@chromium.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, Ian Kilpatrick <ikilpatrick@google.com>
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> I thought this had been discussed in the past, but I can't find anything
> now. Only
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2014JanMar/0012.html which
> isn't asking for non-liveness.
>
> The only live object is DOMQuad#bounds, I believe.
>
> https://drafts.fxtf.org/geometry/#associated-bounding-rectangle
>
> What are the pros and cons for live vs non-live for this object?
>

If it's not live, would you have an attribute that returns a new object
every time, or a method that returns a new object every time, or an
attribute (or method) that returns a new object every time the DOMQuad
changes, or what?

Rob
-- 
lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr  rdn rdsme,anea lurpr  edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf
toD
selthor  stor  edna  siewaoeodm  or v sstvr  esBa  kbvted,t
rdsme,aoreseoouoto
o l euetiuruewFa  kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr  rdm  or rnea
lurpr
.a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t  nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr
esn
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2015 10:48:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 November 2015 10:48:35 UTC