W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > April 2014

Re: WebIDL-compatible syntax compromise

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:54:16 -0400
Message-ID: <533C40B8.6060906@mozilla.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 4/2/14 12:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Nice work.  I hope that the date has no bearing on this.

April fools! ;-)

No, just kidding now. It's real.

> On 1 April 2014 18:17, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> wrote:
>> typedef (long or ConstrainLongRange) ConstrainLong;
>> typedef (double or ConstrainDoubleRange) ConstrainDouble;
>> typedef (VideoFacingModeEnum or sequence<VideoFacingModeEnum>)
>> ConstrainVideoFacingMode;
>> typedef (DOMString or sequence<DOMString>) ConstrainDOMString;
> Every time I see this I think: damn, WebIDL needs proper generics, not
> the half-baked one that it has (where sequence and Promise are the
> only things that can be blessed with generic parameters)...

WebIDL unions are quite limited and can only unionize discernibly 
different data. I think that makes them unsuited for generics but I 
think that's OK as they seem aimed at duck typing instead.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

PS: It's real.
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 16:54:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:25 UTC