- 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