On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> > wrote: > >> What's the use case for this constructor? > > > > Which one? I guess I don'thave a use-case for these right now. Let's drop > > them and we can add them later if they turn out to be useful. > > I prefer going the other way - having constructable interfaces unless > there's a reason not to do so. > Actually yes, for writing tests for convertRectFromNode and convertQuadFromNode I need constructors that let me construct arbitrary DOMRects and DOMQuads. Is that a valid use-case? I think so :-). For DOMRect I suggest: [Constructor(double left, double top, double width, double height)] For DOMQuad: [Constructor(DOMRect rect), Constructor(DOMPoint p1, DOMPoint p2, DOMPoint p3, DOMPoint p4)] One question about the DOMRect constructor: Should we allow negative width/height? I think not. (And APIs should never create DOMRects with negative width/height.) For DOMQuad, should we allow self-intersecting quads? I can't see a reason not to. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 03:30:56 UTC