- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:53:35 +1300
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Ian Hickson: > Makes sense. What I really want is a NodeList-like interface, but ideally > one that supports all the Array accessors, but I don't want to have to > redefine it each time. Is there some way we could get a "macro" for that > kind of thing? > > See also: > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11195 Yeah, let’s see what comes out of that bug when I get to it. > > I think sequence<T> is fine for the purpose of accepting a JS Array of > > items as a method argument. Presumably the requirement to have > > something like that in WA 1.0 isn’t going away, and there isn’t > > another way to do that in Web IDL currently, so unless there are > > concrete problems with sequence<T> or anyone has ideas on how to do it > > better, I’ll just leave it alone for now. > > Is there some way we can make it only be allowed in arguments to > host-implemented APIs? It might make sense to restrict it in that way, yes. (Plus as a return type.) Filed http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12287 for that. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 01:54:24 UTC