- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:53:52 +1000
- To: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Cc: shiki@google.com
Max Froumentin: > > > The grammar in http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/ prevents > > > declarations such as: > > > > > > const DOMString foo = "bar"; > > > > > > because the "ConstExp" rule [1] only allows a number, or "TRUE" or > > > "FALSE". Is it an omission? It’s an omission in that string constants are omitted from the spec, yes. :-) It was a deliberate omission, which stems from DOMString not being a primitive type at one point. Also, I haven’t come across any specs that need to have string constants yet. Anne van Kesteren: > > What is the use case? Web APIs usually work with numbers (if they have > > constants at all). Max Froumentin: > I was wondering that too. But if there are no use cases, then the spec > should be changed to disallow "const DOMString foo;". I'd disallow > boolean too, in fact, but leave number constants. It does disallow “const DOMString foo;” just by virtue of the fact that there’s no way to represent a string literal, and the production for consts requires an “= value” in there. Booleans: yeah I could see they’re not that useful either. I included them because OMG IDL had them. But I also haven’t seen them used in existing specs. Shiki, I notice that in your es-operating-system project you’re using booleans and strings in consts, but just in the test suite. Do you need these types in practice? (Also I see that you’re using the “string” and “wstring”, and L"wide string" values. Are you of the opinion that Web IDL should introduce those instead of DOMString?) -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 00:54:53 UTC