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

The spec currently requires a TypeError to be thrown, just because there
is no [[Call]] defined for interface objects.  I was going to say that I
agreed with the reasoning from Maciej and Jonas, but this argument has
swayed me the other way:

Mark S. Miller:
> When a normal function F ignores its "this" and returns an object, prefixing
> a call to F with "new" results in no change in behavior. When there are no
> legacy compat issues saying otherwise, I think this is how new
> functions-which-make-things should be defined.

I haven’t made the change yet, but I have made a note in the spec to do
so.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/

Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 03:07:56 UTC