W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:23:23 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLabcxBEPXbrFNFcZ-QGaCvZ-CsaOSyzDY4gCRrhB7g0zA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> Robert, I am confused what purpose the inheritance serves in your
> proposal. The purpose of inheritance in JS is usually to allow you to apply
> superclass methods (or in this case, accessor) to the base class.

You don't mean "base class" here, do you? Normally "base class" means the
same thing as superclass.

> But that does not work if your model is to *remove* permissions in the
> subclass; it would mean you could use the superclass's setter to mutate the
> supposedly-immutable subclass.

My proposal doesn't do that. Client code has no permission to mutate state
via DOMRect.

I am trying to understand what benefit this inheritance hierarchy has over
> a non-hierarchy, and simply can't see one.

We can put functionality common to mutable and immutable rects in DOMRect.

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 22:23:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:18 UTC