W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [WebIDL] interface objects with [Constructor] and [[Call]]

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:31:37 +0200 (CEST)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, annevk@opera.com
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006120030250.8617@sirius>

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Another possibility when there are no legacy constraints is to not 
> implement [[Call]], so that there is only one way to invoke the 
> constructor. For vanilla JS functions, calling them with and without 
> "new" has quite different behavior. And for many builtins, calling with 
> and without "new" actually does subtly different things. Thus, I don't 
> think we want to encourage developers to mix and match.

Fair enough, unless the legacy points us strongly in the other direction.
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 22:32:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:02 UTC