Re: [heycam/webidl] Introduce the observable array type (#836)

@tabatkins I guess you'd have to pass an interface, not a function, if IDL has no way to represent a function. (I think there are cases where functions can be passed in, e.g. rAF or setTimeout, but none as callback parameters).

It makes sense to design something that's hard for spec authors to get wrong. I do think classic index getters and setters haven't created much trouble for spec authors, so not sure why we need a different and more complex model just to give the setter the ability to reject the change (which I think is the only material difference here; all the Array functions would work via index access and `length`).

-- 
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/836#issuecomment-579417291