Re: Exposing constructors of readonly interfaces to web authors

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Domenic Denicola <> wrote:

> Second, internal state needs to be specified, even if it's not in the
> WebIDL.

Of course.

Third, since WebIDL interfaces correspond to concrete JavaScript classes
> directly, it's not possible for one instance of the class to have internal
> state linked to a quad, and another to have... some other, different
> internal state, not related to a quad.
This is why the version in your message was so promising, because it
> reflected the actual usage (being linked to a quad, through the public `q`
> data property) instead of trying and failing to be a generic read-only
> rectangle class that can never be constructed and has properties that
> return "the x coordinate" and similar phrases.

Are you saying we cannot have a WebIDL interface (DOMRectReadOnly)
representing a "common base class" for DOMQuad.bounds rectangles and
mutable DOMRects, because there are separate implementations with different
internal state?

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 Monday, 30 June 2014 02:55:28 UTC