- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:01:25 -0400
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 16:01:55 UTC
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > If that's what you mean, then it definitely needs a better name. If roFoo > is an instance of a ReadOnlyFoo or a FooReadOnly, then if you give me that > instance, you should know that you've given me only the ability to observe > mutations, but not the ability to cause them. If we don't need FooReadOnly > or FooImmutable now, let's postpone them. But let's not use up these names > to describe instances that don't provide these guarantees. > Very well. What name do you suggest for the read-only APIs of a DOMRect? Rob -- 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 Thursday, 3 October 2013 16:01:55 UTC