- 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