Re: [heycam/webidl] Designing mixins (#363)

I'm not sure how related the following is to your question, @tobie, but it seems somewhat related. I came here to state it after doing a skim of #433.

In general I think everything would be greatly simplified if we could just treat mixins as some kind of "macro" that "ahead of time" modifies the given interface. That is, instead of constantly talking about the mixin and the places it's mixed in to, or talking about an interface's members and its mixins' members, we could just talk about the interface's members, and by definition that will also include those of any mixins.

Do you think that direction is feasible to go in? I see some changes in #433 that just go from "A and A's consequential interfaces" to "A and A's mixins" and that seems like a bit of a shame.

I guess this does impact your question, because in this framework, you don't have to worry about the mixin's members having different exposure sets depending on where they're mixed in to. Because there are no members of the mixin; there are just N separate "copies" of those members, living inside each of the interfaces they're mixed in to. That seems nice.

-- 
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/issues/363#issuecomment-326715907