[Bug 25495] Behavior of no [Exposed] on interface members is weird


--- Comment #9 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> ---
"exposure set" seems fine.

The new setup looks great with two caveats:

1)  This bit:

  If [Exposed] appears on both an interface and one of its interface
  members, then the interface member's exposure set MUST be a subset of
  the interface's exposure set.

should not require [Exposed] to appear on the interface itself.  In other
words, this:

  interface Foo {
    [Exposed=Worker] void method();

should be invalid.

2)  Would it makes sense to require that if A inherits from B then the exposure
set of A is a subset of the one for B?  This is not covered by the
consequential interfaces bit, since B is not a consequential interface of A.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 15:50:05 UTC