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

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

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>
Message-ID: <op.w4bzjfzbidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
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

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