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

Re: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:49:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABHxS9gTf5jyX1ZUNrpghzo2yCFiG3sL3_NWD7s-2XnjZD_Q=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.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>
Yes. I don't like DOMRectView but I will not object to it.


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 15:50:24 UTC

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