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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:16 UTC