allen at wirfs-brock.com
Thu Jun 12 12:38:22 PDT 2014
On Jun 12, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/12/14, 3:21 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> simply not knowing whether all of the DOM [[Construct]] semantics could be successfully replaced replaced using only @@create methods and constructor bodies.
> WebIDL currently doesn't use a custom [[Construct]] at all. It uses a custom [[Call]] on DOM constructors.
Is the custom [[Call]] only use to implement WebIDL overload/argument processing semantics? Or do you perform object allocations within the [[Call]. Have you looked at how such constructors would behave when a subclass constructor does a super call to them?
> Chances are, we want to move from that to using @@create or whatever is needed to allow subclassing. In either case, I don't think we'll be doing custom [[Construct]] in the DOM.
When we talked about this in TC29 I don't think anybody identified any specific cases where they knew it would be an issue. The hesitation was more about uncertainty concern the unknown.
More information about the es-discuss