On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Domenic Denicola < domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > From: rocallahan@gmail.com <rocallahan@gmail.com> on behalf of Robert > O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > > > Currently Gecko has an implementation of DOMQuadBounds with no > corresponding WebIDL interface. If I understand you correctly, you say that > because DOMQuadBounds has its own implementation, it must have its own > WebIDL interface in the spec. > > I just checked with Nightly, and indeed the prototype is shared: > > Object.getPrototypeOf((new DOMQuad()).bounds) === > Object.getPrototypeOf(Object.getPrototypeOf(new DOMRect())) > > This is baffling. Even more baffling when you consider that > > Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Object.getPrototypeOf((new > DOMQuad()).bounds), "x").get === > Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Object.getPrototypeOf(Object.getPrototypeOf(new > DOMRect())), "x").get > > So if I understand correctly, you are saying that there are two different > functions being run when I do (new DOMQuad()).bounds.x and when I do (new > DOMRect()).x, but to JavaScript, since DOMQuadBounds has a different > implementation than DOMRect. But it looks like they are the same function > to JavaScript? > > How is this possible? It definitely doesn't seem desirable. I see where you're coming from, but I think the underlying problem is that JS lets you do such prototype and method equality checks in the first place, thus exposing implementation decisions that should not be exposed. I do not want to force such exposure onto DOM APIs. 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 Tuesday, 1 July 2014 22:57:46 UTC