W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: It doesn't make sense to use [MapClass] for the CacheList interface

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 09:42:09 -0400
Message-ID: <536CDB31.3030702@mit.edu>
To: public-webapps@w3.org
On 5/9/14, 4:20 AM,  wrote:
> Providing base interface for Cache interface

Yes, but what does that actually mean in practice?  Will there be
AsyncMap.prototype methods that can operate on any AsyncMap instance
including Cache?  What would those methods do?

> Regarding the implication to ES, I have no idea. Not sure but no one has proposed this to TC39 yet and neither do we know if it makes much sense.

OK.  I would recommend just speccing Cache without the underdefined base
class unless we want to block on sorting out what this base class would

> Re the type coercion, I think it largely has to follow what the ES6 Map will do.

ES6 Map is untyped, like most of ES.  The keys and values are "any" in
WebIDL parlance.  The only coercion I see is that a key of -0 is coerced
to +0.

Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 13:42:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:24 UTC