Re: WebIDL-compatible syntax compromise

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.