W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2008

[whatwg] HTML 5 : Misconceptions Documented

From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:17:33 +0200
Message-ID: <a9699fd20808060717j3d8fd44cp6124593e1829fcf5@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> I think Garret has a valid point (despite his needlessly rude tone) that the
> way we describe magical dynamic properties in a way that makes clear they
> are also visible to the "in" operator and to
> Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty. Are there any DOM bindings that have index
> (or named) properties which are *not* visible in such a way?

You mean "ECMAScript binding implementation", right?

Using reflection on a C# class won't give you a property named "0" or
"myform", even though you can get them using myvariable[0] and
myvariable["myform"].
If I were to implement a binding in Python, I would do the same
(though ? 0 in myvariable ? and ? "myform" in myvariable ? would work
the same as in ECMAScript today; but dir(myvariable) wouldn't show "0"
or "myform")

> If not, then the current [IndexGetter] definition is useless and we need
> a better formalism.

...or rather the ECMAScript binding should define this particularity.

> I think Web IDL should provide a formalism to cater to this, because nearly
> all bindings with special dynamic properties work like this afaik. But I
> think it would have to involve a pseudo-method for the "hasOwnProperty"
> check (which "in" is based on).

hasOwnProperty is ECMAScript-specific.

-- 
Thomas Broyer
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 07:17:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:04 UTC