Re: Selectors: name find method and find signature

On 9/13/13 10:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> In any case, my real questions revolve around generic vs branded methods and
>> whatnot, which are not covered by those two bugs.
>
> I think they should be generic

OK, fwiw I think I agree.  The next question is whether they should be 
generic in the elements of the collection or not too.

> Because IDL doesn't really deal well with this.constructor-type stuff
> and generic methods.

Sure, but that's something to fix in IDL.

> Updating IDL to make that work have proper
> terminology hooks is fine for me too.

Good.  That's what I'd like to see, and what should imo happen on 
public-script-coord.

>> The IDL specification style is a lot less error-prone to implement for
>> non-JS-engine-hackers than the ES specification style, for what it's worth,
>> since it allows implementors to work with objects that have sane behavior in
>> the implementation language, not whatever weird behavior the js engine API
>> imposes...
>
> TC39 and like-minded people are pushing in the direction of the
> platform being mostly a JavaScript library which would indeed give you
> exactly those problems...

Why?

There is no reason we can't have macros for commonly used ES-style 
patterns that people can use by reference in specs.  That's supposed to 
be the purpose of WebIDL.

> I'm not really sure how to reconcile those two views.

Like I just said above.

> Anything other than these aspects?

Not sure what you're asking.

-Boris

Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 14:53:46 UTC