Re: [webcomponents]: Of weird script elements and Benadryl from Daniel Buchner on 2013-04-12 (public-webapps@w3.org from April to June 2013)

From: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:24:33 -0700
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Cc: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Dave Herman <dherman@mozilla.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <CAHZ6zJHX-jjp_4kkAjVVZf97pK6RQEw6jd-i9gj_fKnDHDmeLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>wrote:

> 2) since we do have to live with generated constructors -- at least
> for a little while, we have two decoupled operations:
>
> a) create prototype
> b) generate constructor.
>

Is this order required? Can we not generate the constructor, then let the
developer modify it using the same means they have since the beginning of
time - or if *they choose*, use slick ES6 syntax?

Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 22:25:34 UTC