Re: Exposing constructors of readonly interfaces to web authors from Domenic Denicola on 2014-07-10 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:51:12 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA46FABD-F7ED-4327-9A17-0C852C9F7059@domenicdenicola.com>

> On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:47, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/10/14, 12:42 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>> It was to avoid introducing another instance. Is there a way in IDL to
>> have a constructor but not have the class available in the global object?
> 
> No, but we could certainly add such a thing.  However, why is that desirable?  What use is a constructor you can't get hold of without weird tricks?

While I don't really understand why it is so important to avoid new globals, it *is* important to avoid non-constructible classes where possible, even if their constructors are not assigned to global variables.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 16:52:01 UTC