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

Re: [webidl] Stringifiers should allow optional arguments

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:35:18 -0400
Message-ID: <53C01246.1050307@mit.edu>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 7/11/14, 12:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> In cases when you do "stringifier attribute", sure.  It saves you the
>> trouble of having:
>>
>>    attribute DOMString foo;
>>    DOMString toString();
>>
>> and prose that says that invoking toString() does the same thing as the foo
>> getter.  Which is not very much trouble, imo, compared to what a typical
>> toJSON prose description would need to do.
>
> I guess that would depend on the situation. For both it seems you
> could define an abstract operation and then define the attribute and
> method that have equal behavior in terms of that abstraction.

The toJSON case doesn't usually have an attribute that produces the JSON 
stringification (in fact, I can't think of any cases when that would be 
desirable), so you'd need to create the (fairly complicated!) abstract 
operation just for the toJSON to use.

-Boris
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 16:35:48 UTC

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