RE: JSIDL ideas for read only (Was: RE: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces) from Domenic Denicola on 2013-10-03 (public-script-coord@w3.org from October to December 2013)

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:58:04 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B4AE8F4E86E26C47AC407D49872F6F9F9B266C32@BY2PRD0510MB354.namprd05.prod.outlook.>

From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] 

> The point being, this is not a useful way to have a common superclass that's immutable and has the getters and a subclass with the setters, because due to how accessor descriptors work in ES those setters end up shadowing the getters.  :(

Oh dear, how embarrassing. Back to the drawing board :(

It'll be tricky to make something that hews close to JS semantics but is still DRY for this add-setter-in-subclass use case. Siiiigh.

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 16:58:36 UTC