- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:23:53 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26985 Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bzbarsky@mit.edu, | |cam@mcc.id.au, | |domenic@domenicdenicola.com --- Comment #1 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> --- Basically, the proposal is that http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-iterators would go something like this: If the interface defines an indexed property getter, then the Function object is %ArrayProto_values% ([ECMA-262], section 6.1.7.4). If the interface has an iterable declaration and does not define an indexed property getter, ... If the has a maplike declaration or setlike declaration and does not define an indexed property getter, ... That would actually make sense with the prose at http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#dfn-values-to-iterate-over which defines "values to iterate over" for the indexed case. We'd still need to modify whatever methods iterable<> pulls in that assume the "default iterator" to work with the indexed case, though (e.g. forEach() would just work, but keys() would need some changes. I think this change is fine; people are unlikely to want iterable things with indexed getters that iterate something other than the indices, and I _really_ hope people don't start adding maplike/setlike things with indexed getters. Maybe that hope should even be codified by making that invalid IDL? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 12:23:55 UTC