classes and enumerability
bzbarsky at mit.edu
Fri Jan 30 05:24:45 PST 2015
On 1/30/15 7:56 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> this will change too ?
Changing that is what we're talking about, yes.
> WebIDL is full of inconsistencies compared with JS world and that,
> talking about backward compatibility, shouldn't change.
The question is whether backwards compat outweighs platform consistency
here. For example, does anyone actually depend on "length" being
enumerable on a nodelist? I've seen plenty of people working around it,
but no one so far depending on it.
> That is just fine as everything enumerable, that is just fine as
> Interface definition.
Trying to align classes and IDL interfaces is a policy decision that was
made a while back, fwiw....
> Why should IDL make classes bad for everything in JS land
I have no idea what imagined strawman you're replying to here, but it
would be good to spell out what your (incorrect, I think) assumptions
are if you're going to reply to those assumptions, not to facts.
More information about the es-discuss