- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 03:33:14 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12248 --- Comment #14 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-03-08 03:33:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) > It's not a problem in practice for implementors or web > developers, so long as the [[Get]] internal operations used to access "keyword > parameters" are done before any other steps in the given method's spec, and in > a fixed order. Just so that I am clear on the two choices here: (A) if serializing, you would end up calling every getter on the object (and on all of the objects referenced by its properties, and so on) in a particular order, before actually doing the work in the method (B) if not serializing, but handling accessors, the UA would just grab properties in whatever order it liked, at any time during the method The former means spec writers don't need to think about when properties are accessed (since Web IDL defines it), but can lead to wasted work (and side effects!) calling getters for properties that the UA would never care about. The latter means the UA can get away with less work, but spec writers need to specify when and in what order properties would be accessed. (And I think there's a reasonable chance that not all spec writers will do this correctly.) I was saying "let's always do (A)", and you are saying "(B) is more natural". Both options are well defined and could be interoperably implemented. (Correct me if I am wrong.) (Option (B) also means that specification writers probably need to lower themselves to talking about the ECMAScript binding specifically, rather than whatever higher level IDL type this functionality would correspond to.) -- 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 Tuesday, 8 March 2011 03:33:16 UTC