- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:58:12 -0700
- To: Dimitry Golubovsky <golubovsky@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Dimitry Golubovsky: > I have two questions about these two extended attributes: > > 1. Can an interface have both Constructor and NamedConstructor > extended attributes? Yes. > 2. Although NamedConstructor cannot have the same name as the > interface it is defined on (4.2.4 ed. draft), are the following > definitions semantically equivalent from implementation standpoint? > > […] > > while per 4.2.4 the latter must be rejected by the WebIDL compiler, > but from the implementation standpoint it might be easier to convert > the former into the latter internally and process both attributes > uniformly. They are a little different. For example, constants on an interface aren’t reflected as properties on a named constructor object. Also, [[HasInstance]] isn’t defined for named constructor objects. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 07:58:45 UTC