Re: [heycam/webidl] Simplify the distinguishable table. (#183)

>> You might want to add a note saying that types that appear in the same category are undistinguishable.

>The normative part of that is covered by the lack of a ● in all foo/foo cells except for interface/interface. Are you saying that's not clear enough, so I should clarify it with a note?

You're right. This is actually quite clear. Never mind my comment.

> Is your point that the union-decomposing steps already do the work of "includes a nullable type", so we can use the more primitive notion in the header?

No. It's the "at most one" that bothers me. It suggests we're comparing _n_ types rather than 2. I should have suggested the following instead:

> Two types are distinguishable if they do not both [includes a nullable type|include a nullable type]…

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/183#issuecomment-251782963