On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > Making DOMPoint a dictionary, as currently proposed, is a problem since it > means other objects (such as the proposed DOMQuad) can't have DOMPoints as > attributes. I'm assuming the WebIDL restriction that attributes can't be > dictionaries is not easily removed. Yes, this is fine with me. > I think we probably should make DOMPoint a regular interface. For methods > that take DOMPoints as parameters, we can retain the convenient literal > syntax for points by adding a DOMPointLiteral dictionary type and using > union types, e.g. > DOMPoint convertPoint((DOMPoint or DOMPointLiteral) point); You don't even need to do that - as long as their attribute/dict-member names match, a DOMPoint *is* a DOMPointLiteral, so you can just write the function signature as: DOMPoint convertPoint(DOMPointLiteral point) ~TJReceived on Monday, 16 September 2013 16:43:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:32 UTC