ES6 draft, Rev20 is now available
allen at wirfs-brock.com
Wed Oct 30 12:23:22 PDT 2013
On Oct 30, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 10/30/13 2:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>> Those are the sort of objects, that we decided to explicitly exclude
>>> from spread and for-of.
>> Sure. The question is whether we can compatibly exclude them from
>> sequence<T> in WebIDL. I expect we can.
>> Anne, do you want to post to public-script-coord about this, or should I?
> (I mostly asked here first since the other breaking changes to IDL to
> indeed small enough to get away with.)
Doesn't really depend upon the usage. If an API is going to return a sequence<T> to JS code, it really should have an @@iterator. But that is presumably a non-breaking change, from the JS perspective. If an API wants to accept a sequence<T> it only needs it to have an @@iterator if it is actually going to use JS iterator semantics to process. There is no reason that an implementation of such a consuming API couldn't do its own fall back to non-iterator based iteration. That would be a non-breaking solution.
More information about the es-discuss