- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:00:10 +1000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/17/13 2:42 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>> * A.prototype.f.call(b) succeeds
>
> What are the use cases for this?
None particularly, but it seemed simpler to me to describe whether
X.prototype.f.call(y) should succeed based on whether y implements X,
rather than whether y implements an interface that directly inherits from X.
> In fact, what are the use cases for having an interface that appears on
> the RHS of "implements" but also has an interface object and prototype
> object at all?
I don't think we have any current uses of "A implements B" where B is
not [NoInterfaceObject], though correct me if I'm wrong. We could just
disallow it. I fear at some point we might want to do "A implements
EventTarget", if A already inherits from some other interface. Though
we could get around that with:
[NoInterfaceObject]
interface EventTargetUtils { ... };
interface EventTarget { };
EventTarget implements EventTargetUtils;
interface Node : EventTarget { ... };
interface A : SomeOtherInterface { ... };
A implements EventTargetUtils;
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 13:04:01 UTC