On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > You could also just introduce DOMRectImmutable and DOMRectMutable and a > > typedef (DOMRectMutable or DOMRectImmutable) DOMRect; > That's probably more work than what I proposed. Also, DOMQuad.bounds can't be this kind of DOMRect; the rect returned by DOMQuad.bounds is not immutable (it can be changed by modifying the points of DOMQuad), but it's also not a DOMRectMutable (since Web authors can't be allowed to set its members). So this approach is inadequate. To be honest I still wish we could avoid duplicating every interface. So > far we have DOMPoint, DOMRect, DOMQuad, DOMMatrix and ever single interface > needs to have a mutable and immutable interface. Each new proposed > interface will always actually introduce two. I wish we could move more of > magic into WebIDL. Sounds like we can't for this kind of magic. > We only need to introduce mutable vs not mutable versions of interfaces where there are clear needs. Right now we only have a clear need in the case of DOMRect. 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 Saturday, 28 September 2013 10:53:45 UTC