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

Re: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:03:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBzcPSVo-Aek4n=Z8GmW-1v9_NAunK-jMWWLfphXiAvSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:58 AM, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/10/13 16:49, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> Yes. I don't like DOMRectView but I will not object to it.
> Isn't this confusing with ArrayBufferView, which afaict is read/write?
> I think DomRectReadOnly is a fine name. Anyone who expects "readonly" to
> mean "immutable" will already be confused by DOM, WebIDL, and numerous other
> libraries and frameworks that use "readonly" in some situation where the
> mutability depends on who is trying to make the change (e.g. [1], [2])

Plus the fact that there will *also* be an *Immutable subclass.

Yeah, I object to the alternate naming proposals.  LSP doesn't depend
on the name of a class, and ReadOnly is clear and matches the use of
"readonly" elsewhere in the platform's docs.

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 18:03:53 UTC

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