- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:08:20 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:33:58 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> > wrote: > >> Simon Pieters wrote: >>> Boris Zbarsky suggested it might be better to have two separate >>> interfaces, with the mutable interface has settable attributes and the >>> immutable interface has readonly attributes. [3] >> >> Would it be too fancy to try to use inheritance to relate DOMRect and >> DOMRectReadOnly? Web IDL already has this syntax: >> >> interface DOMRectReadOnly { >> readonly attribute double x; >> ...; >> }; >> >> interface DOMRect : DOMRectReadOnly { >> inherit attribute double x; >> ... >> }; >> >> which basically means to have the same behaviour for >> DOMRect.prototype.x's getter as DOMRectReadOnly.prototype.x's. > You would use DOMRectReadOnly as type for every rect object that you pass to a method instead of DOMRect. That is not a problem at all implementation or specification wise. I just hope that people understand this concept and don't try to "convert" one object to the other. Greetings, Dirk > Works for me. Is there any reason URLUtils/URLUtilsReadOnly doesn't do > this? > > -- > Simon Pieters > Opera Software >
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 10:09:00 UTC