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

Re: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:42:47 +0200
To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Allen Wirfs-Brock" <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w43shlkjidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:07:52 +0200, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>  
wrote:

>> Is the problem here that a mutable DOMRect instance has DOMRectReadOnly  
>> in
>> the prototype chain, which is a lie?
>
>
> Essentially, yes. I'm not so much concerned with implementation  
> inheritance
> as with subtyping. Inheritance is an implementation matter of the  
> providers
> of the abstractions, so whatever works is fine. Subtyping is what clients
> see. Choosing names for subtyping relationships which lie is bad.  
> Choosing
> names that seem to promise safety restrictions which they do not is
> dangerous.

OK.

I maintain that DOMRectRead looks silly. I would be OK with DOMRectView.  
Does that work?

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 14:43:23 UTC

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