- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:22:17 +0200
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:44:31 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > 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. OK. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/6eba16fd75cb -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 14:22:52 UTC