W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Exposing constructors of readonly interfaces to web authors

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:55:01 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYwOL-Y5_hAsPQyKKF5UxK=PrMj7jj=PdeHYD1-XENsMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> 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?

Rob
-- 
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:22 UTC