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

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

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 08:44:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLb8=FChNAFPgx1b_wAvWK8+bFrfjy=cfZgh_9jbRQ-b8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:15:30 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <
> robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> Now we have three interfaces where only two are needed. Why shouldn't
>> DOMRect extend DOMRectReadOnly directly?
> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-style/2013Sep/0725.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0725.html>you argued that that would be confusing. Did you change your mind, or was
> it only confusing for "immutable"?

As long as it's clear that ReadOnly != Immutable, I think it's OK.

I think readonly<Foo> is going to be difficult to define and will also be
clumsy. An interface might have arbitrary mutation methods on it, e.g.
Foo::reset(), and there will be no easy way to automatically obviate such
methods without additional annotations. I don't think we should go that way.

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 Wednesday, 2 October 2013 12:45:04 UTC

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