Re: Some WebIDL.js progress

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM, François REMY wrote:

> Hi guys,
>  
> I’m on holiday until the 7th of July, and therefore I have some time to work on WebIDL.js. Yesterday, I made some progress on the typescript code generator.
>  
> https://github.com/extensibleweb/webidl.js/blob/typescript/typescript/default.htm
>  
> Today, I would like to add the autogeneration of arguments checks for non-overloaded methods but I noticed the API had some usability issues from that point of view. I would prefer it to be defined in this way:
>  
> interface WebIDL.Converters {
> [name: string]: WebIDL.Converter<any>
> }
>  
> interface WebIDL.Converter<V> {
>  
> // return true if “v” is a normal JS value for an instance of V
> canCast(v: any): bool
>  
> // return true if “v” could be converted to an instance of V
> canConvert(v: any): bool
>  
> // return “v” if it is an instance of V, or throw
> cast(v: any): V
>  
> // convert “v” to an instance of V, or throw
> convert(v: any, attributes?: IDLAttribute[]): V
>  
> }
>  
> The usages are the following:
>  
> Converter.canCast:
> - to check return values against return type
> - to select the best calling convention (overloaded methods)
>  
> Converter.canConvert:
> - to select an appropriate calling convention if none matched exactly (overloaded methods)
>  
> Converter.cast/convert:
> - to perform the casting/conversion
>  
> Marcos, is it okay if I refactor the current files using this pattern or do you actively rely on the current structure already?

I rely on the current model already in a bunch of projects, but seems that the above could just be added without breaking backwards compat.

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 08:50:20 UTC