KEMBAR78
feat: support constructor as a member by saschanaz · Pull Request #300 · w3c/webidl2.js · GitHub
Skip to content

Conversation

@saschanaz
Copy link
Member

@marcoscaceres marcoscaceres self-requested a review April 17, 2019 03:22
Constructor(float radius)]
interface Circle {
constructor();
constructor(float radius);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wonder if we should add our own cases too with other argument things... probably not necessary given everything uses the same code path.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

..e.g. variadic, optional, defaults, etc.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's not strictly needed but also does not harm. I'll add them as it's simple enough.

Copy link
Member

@marcoscaceres marcoscaceres left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great... though should we sit on this till the WebIDL side merges?

@saschanaz
Copy link
Member Author

though should we sit on this till the WebIDL side merges?

whatwg/webidl#700 (review) says the vise-versa thing, wouldn't it be a deadlock? I'm not sure.

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

Ok, I think we should let them know we are ready on our side. We are a small piece of the solution: getting Gecko, Blink, etc. to update their binding layers will take some time. We could also add ReSpec support, which will also help move things along a little.

@saschanaz
Copy link
Member Author

Should be merged only when we are confident that browser implementors are on board.

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

Yay! Looks like this can finally land... we should make a plan for what to do about specs that are using the old syntax.

@saschanaz
Copy link
Member Author

Yay! Looks like this can finally land... we should make a plan for what to do about specs that are using the old syntax.

We can add an autofix, but I feel like I should wait until at least some of the spec actually start to use the new syntax.

@saschanaz saschanaz merged commit 6e41ba0 into gh-pages Aug 28, 2019
@saschanaz saschanaz deleted the constructor branch August 28, 2019 03:20
@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

I'd like to use it for PaymentRequest :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants