- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 06:15:34 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23682 --- Comment #29 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> --- (In reply to Cameron McCormack from comment #26) > As for renaming "sequence" to "iterable", we could do that -- though Boris' > recent changes already make the JS -> IDL conversion for sequence take any > iterable -- but using iterable as a return type would be as confusing as > sequence is now. If we did that, then we should have a type named Array<T> > which means "reference to an Array object", use that as the return type of > methods that want to return a new array, and have an easy to use "create a > new Array object with these values" term that can be referenced. Ah, saw this just now. I think we should do this. Either way, I think we need to define that for mutable properties that have type Array<T> or FrozenArray<T> (or "frozen Array<T>"), i.e. use-case D, that you can assign any iterable object to such a property. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2014 06:15:36 UTC