classes and enumerability

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 22:44:34 PST 2015


Developers have to understand they cannot `new HTMLDivElement()` anyway and
they cannot extend WebIDL interfaces in JS world neither.

I am not sure why you see this misalignment that has always been there a
problem just now, but also I am not sure I understand why this wouldn't be
equivalent:

```js

var HTMLDivElement = new WebIDL({
  yourDefinitionAsObject() {
  },
  get properties() {
  },
  attributeName: 'value'
});

```

You have already properties and types nobody can set or ensure in native JS
... and I would never stop a programming language from evolving because
"another one" (that' how I see WebIDL) is limited or historically different
... I mean, it is different, it has always been, why is this a concern only
today?

Genuinely curious, but non enumerable for JS classes is **good** and I
believe it should not be re-changed.

Best Regards


On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:

> On 1/29/15 5:43 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> My sense, from the informal discussions about this at the TC39 meeting,
>> is that most of us would hope that new WebIDL abstractions follow the ES6
>> class conventions and that existing WebIDL, because of legacy constrants
>> abstraction are likely not to migrate to the ES6 class conventions.
>>
>
> OK.  Just so we're clear, there are well north of 500 existing Web IDL
> interfaces defined in the web platform.  It will be a while, if ever,
> before the "new" ones get anywhere close to that.
>
> So what that approach (assuming none of the existing things are migrated)
> does is basically doom the web platform to always having behavior that
> authors can't predict.  I doubt I can actually get on board with that
> course of action....  :(
>
>  Syntactically, in WebIDL, you would presumably need an attribute or
>> something to indicate which set of conventions to use for any particular
>> interface.
>>
>
> Sure.  I'm worried about the goals, not the syntax; the syntax is trivial.
>
> -Boris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150130/68678d52/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list