- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:11:22 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12845 --- Comment #18 from Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> 2011-06-08 00:11:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) > Behavior is unspecified by types in such systems, and definitely in WebIDL. > Can't write checks that WebIDL can't cash. > > Why is behavior an issue here? Bad behavior can happen lots of ways. We don't > try to stop it by outlawing expressiveness along any given axis. > > /be I think there were two actual issues at the beginning of this thread. First,if a super-interface says some attribute (property in JS terms) is readonly can an interface derived from it make that same attribute read/write. The answer should be yes. Adding write behavior is a specialization which is valid subtyping behavior. (this seems like a WebIDL question that should be independent of language bindings) The second issue is how does this map to JS if the attributes correspond to JS accessor properties as JS can't define an accessor set function without also defining its get function. This is presumably an issue for the WebIDL ECMAScript binding. My suggest is that the answer is that an implementation of the derived writable interface must also implement the required inherited read behavior. It can do this either by making the get side of the accessor delegate to the over-ridden get implementation or by providing a new get-side implementation that does the required. It really seems more like an implementation decision rather than something that needs to be specified in the Es binding. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 00:11:27 UTC