- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:45:45 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12845
Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #36 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-06-30 03:45:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> No one proposed that.... the proposal was to have an IDL syntax for the derived
> interface declaring a setter on itself, not on the ancestor interface, while
> picking up the ancestor interface getter automatically.
Then I misread the earlier proposals, sorry.
As I mention, it's not too much trouble to state in prose that a derived
interface's attribute's get behaviour is the same as the one on the ancestor
interface. But I can see that it would be advantageous to have that encoded in
the IDL so that binding generators can implement that half of the writable
property automatically, so... let me propose something.
--
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 Thursday, 30 June 2011 03:45:47 UTC