W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [WebIDL] A new way to define UnionTypes

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:02:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia8pZmWQH+9GTbuvxSpLo=_xTkpSypDZF_R=5z3B+Jm8zA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Andrei Bucur <abucur@adobe.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 8/29/12 12:40 PM, Andrei Bucur wrote:
>>> It's not impossible in IDL.  In fact, it's remarkably easy to define in
>>> IDL.  We
>>> just don't want to implement multi-inheritance in WebKit because it's
>>> slow.
>>> However, I don't see how Andrei's proposal makes the implementation any
>>> more efficient.
>> The proposal tries to reduce the issue this by providing a mechanism to
>> distinguish between the two: the "inherited" type and the "implements" type.
> I don't understand this part.  The WebIDL already says S is an "implements"
> type...  What are you trying to distinguish between and why?  Again, WebIDL
> already provides the "list all things that have S on the RHS of
> 'implements'" information: it's right there in the IDL!
>> If it's actually OK to return a supplemental interface, then I suppose
>> this proposal is useless and the differentiation between the two cases is
>> implementation specific.
> Sure sounds like it to me.
> Returning any interface is fine, whether "supplemental" or not.

That matches my understanding of WebIDL.

Andrei, the problem is not in how to specify this behavior.  The
problem is that we don't want to implement the behavior that you're
trying to specify.

For those of you interested in this topic, the reasons have been
discussed extensively on webkit-dev.

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 17:03:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:38 UTC