Re: [heycam/webidl] Mixins can lead to empty exposure sets in weird ways (#761)

Right, that is the argument for the spec's current intersection setup.  My main concern with it is the somewhat implicit (not explicitly stated in the IDL) way in which the exposure set is determined.  In particular, if I have:
```
[Exposed=(A,B)]
interface Foo {};

[Exposed=(B,C)]
interface mixin Bar {};

Foo includes Bar;
```
then reading the definition of a mixin does not make it clear that some things from the mixin will only get exposed in B and not any other global.   But I guess things would be no better if the mixin overall had `Exposed=(A,B,C)` and then a specific member had `Exposed=(B,C)`....

-- 
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/761#issuecomment-518331610