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

Re: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:02:01 -0400
Message-ID: <524CC209.7010203@mit.edu>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 10/2/13 7:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Okay, so that's a no go in general.

So here's a question.  What set of use cases are we trying to addres?

Defining something where setters have to automatically no-op or throw on 
an object because it's readonly is not too bad.  The complicated thing 
is (mutator) methods.  To address that you have to mark which methods 
are mutators or something.

That then still leaves the question of what happens when you pass a 
readonly<Foo> to a function that takes Foo, I guess.

> Interfaces can opt into readonly behavior with a [ReadonlyCapable]
> extended attribute

Right, this would be explicit opt-ins.

-Boris
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 01:02:32 UTC

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