Re: [heycam/webidl] Stop using extended attributes for constructors (#700)

domenic commented on this pull request.

Overall looks good; a few minor things to resolve.

In regard to ecosystem impact, what I'd really like to do is have a checklist of all specs to update. How long it takes us to update is less crucial to me, but having a corpus of all [Constructor]-using IDL and a list of specs we need to send PRs to would be a good idea.

@foolip or his team may know the latest on the "canonical IDL corpus" story?

> @@ -2540,6 +2542,82 @@ in which case the [=default toJSON operation=] is exposed instead.
 </div>
 
 
+<h4 id=idl-constructors oldids="Constructor" dfn>Constructor methods</h4>

"Constructor method" is a weird term. I usually think of constructors and methods as disjoint sets. Could we call these "constructors" or, if we really need a term of art, perhaps "constructor operations"?

> +          Node item(unsigned long index);
+          readonly attribute unsigned long length;
+        };
+
+        [Exposed=Window]
+        interface Circle {
+          constructor();
+          constructor(double radius);
+          attribute double r;
+          attribute double cx;
+          attribute double cy;
+          readonly attribute double circumference;
+        };
+    </pre>
+
+    An ECMAScript implementation supporting these interfaces would have a \[[Construct]] property

```suggestion
    An ECMAScript implementation supporting these interfaces would implement a \[[Construct]] internal method
```

> +        interface Circle {
+          constructor();
+          constructor(double radius);
+          attribute double r;
+          attribute double cx;
+          attribute double cy;
+          readonly attribute double circumference;
+        };
+    </pre>
+
+    An ECMAScript implementation supporting these interfaces would have a \[[Construct]] property
+    on the <code class="idl">Circle</code> interface object which would return a new object that
+    [=implements=] the interface.
+    It would take either zero or one argument.
+    The <code class="idl">NodeList</code> interface object would not have a \[[Construct]]
+    property.

We should either have this be an XXX unclear box, or block this on resolving #698.

-- 
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/700#pullrequestreview-222302611