- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 03:01:58 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12845 --- Comment #29 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-06-17 03:01:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #28) > > It's not a big deal that they both be there though > > It is, though, since the spec needs to define behavior for the "superclass" > functions/getters/setters being applied to the "subclass" and currently it may > or my not do so in sane ways due to the assumption that such things can't > happen. I've been assuming that the superclass version of the function would always keep working (or at least that the specification defines it so that it does). So you could still do // maybe this alerts "a" alert(Superclass.prototype.theFunction.call(theObject)); // and this alerts "b" theObject.theFunction(); If we are in the state that calling the superclass function would violate some invariants because the specification assumes that it cannot be called on the object, then that really would be a problem. I don't think that's the case, though. -- 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 Friday, 17 June 2011 03:02:07 UTC