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

@annevk wrote:
> @bzbarsky  wrote:
>> The one drawback with it is that if you have an entire mixin that should all have on exposure set, which doesn't match the exposure set of the whole interface, you have to annotate each thing in the mixin individually.
> This only ever matters if the mixin is exposed on a subset of the interface, right? I'm not sure if that is common, but if it is we might want to allow [Exposed] on mixins as a shorthand for annotating all individual members of the mixin.

Yes, the idea was not to prevent mixins from being annontated with [Exposed]. It was to make the default behavior of missing an [Exposed] annotation the same as it is for partial interfaces. That is, to have mixin members exposed the same way as the (non-annotated) interface members of the interface the mixin was included in. Similarly, annotating a mixin with the [Exposed] extended attribute would be shorthand for annotating all of its members. Again, just like it works for partial interfaces.

-- 
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-326729669