On 6/17/13 9:00 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > 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. Ah, ok. Well, it's way easier to implement the other. ;) > 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. You're not wrong, but my restriction was stronger: B is [NoInterfaceObject] _and_ does not need a prototype object. As in, there are no objects that have B as a non-supplemental interface. In this situation, the methods "on B" are simply non-observable, so their behavior doesn't need defining, since they don't actually need to insist. > I fear at some point we might want to do "A implements > EventTarget" That would indeed require defining how EventTarget.prototype.addEventListener and company behave on instances of A.... I guess I'll just disallow this in Gecko's WebIDL parser for now and if it ever happens we'll need to significantly change how we implement EventTarget. :( -BorisReceived on Monday, 17 June 2013 13:28:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:13 UTC