- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:38:58 +0200
- To: "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:15:47 +0200, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > Can somebody spell out how this proposed inheritance hierarchy works in > actual ECMAScript, not WebIDL? I cannot see how it would work at all. A > .js file containing some code that we can actually execute would make > the most sense. > > For example, if readonly is taken to mean non-writable non-configurable > data properties, then you cannot reconfigure them to be writable in a > subclass constructor. Or if it's meant to be getters only, touching an > underlying backing store, then you should be able to bypass that > protection by using the subclass setter applied to a superclass instance. > > I am very concerned that the design thinking here is not taking place at > the level of the language in which these constructs manifest. AFAICT there would be two separate properties in JS. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-attributes However, roc pointed out that the inheritance idea is confusing since the mutable object would inherit from an interface that claims immutability. Having separate interfaces doesn't have that problem. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 12:39:31 UTC