On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:05 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> > On 7/17/14, 5:37 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> >> With the current limitations of WebIDL, does it mean you prefer using
> [ArrayClass]? (Instead of subclassing Array?).
> >
> > For green-field things, I would prefer just using an Array for now, then
> doing subclassing once it's implemented.
> >
> > For legacy stuff, subclassing Array is not an option thus far, because
> none of the JS engines support subclassing yet. This has nothing to do
> with WebIDL limitations; it's a V8/SpiderMonkey/Chakra/JSC limitation.
> >
> >> Does that work together with [NoInterfaceObject]
> >
> > You mean [ArrayClass]? Yes, it does.
> >
> >> and would you even consider it?
> >
> > Consider [NoInterfaceObject], you mean? I could probably live with
> that, yes.
>
> Thanks Boris! Anne, Domenic, Ms2ger, Rik does that sound like a compromise:
>
> [NoInterfaceObject,
> ArrayClass]
> interface DOMRectList {
> readonly attribute unsigned long length;
> getter DOMRect? item(unsigned long index);
> };
>
Weren't we going to rename it to LegacyDOMRectList so people don't try to
reuse it in the future?
I would still like to know if other browser are onboard with implementing
[ArrayClass] and extending this object with that feature.
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 06:21:24 UTC