Re: [WebIDL] Assigning to constants
Cameron McCormack: Yes. The properties set for IDL consts on the interface object, the interface prototype object (or corresponding exception ones) should all be ReadOnly. (And the prototype is where the constant comes from in the document.documentElement.ELEMENT_NODE case.) Magnus Kristiansen: The last case isn't covered at the moment, since s14 of [[Put]] goes to s24, skipping [[CanPut]] (which is the step that checks prototype chain for readonly). It should instead go to s19. Over-zealous optimisation on my part (fixed). However, at that point it's just doing what would happen at s15, so s14 can actually be removed. Not as of the latest revision, I think? And two more issues I noticed: - Using an IndexSetter results in a return value (s7), the other returns are void. Copypaste from [[Get]] maybe? Yeah it shouldn’t be there (fixed). - [[HasProperty]] = true (s9-10) should go to s15, since s14 is trivially false. This solves itself if s14 is removed per above. It’s not false if [[HasProperty]] returned true because the property was in the prototype chain rather than directly on the object, though. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Re: [WebIDL] Assigning to constants
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:03:31 +0200, Andrew Oakley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Pieters wrote:
What should happen when you assign something to a constant? e.g.:
Node.ELEMENT_NODE = 'Hello world';
Web IDL doesn't say, AFAICT. Firefox and Opera allow the assignment.
In WebKit it silently fails. I had expected an exception to be thrown,
just like for readonly attributes.
It'd be good if this was defined.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/Binding4DOM/#es-constants says the
property has attributes { DontDelete }. That would imply that it
doesn't have the ReadOnly attribute, and as such the assignment should
be allowed.
Ok, good that it is defined.
But is there a good reason why it is this way rather than what I'd
expected (same as readonly attributes)? I think authors should be able to
rely on constants being, um, constant. No?
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Re: [WebIDL] Assigning to constants
On Jun 13, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: Simon Pieters: Ok, good that it is defined. But is there a good reason why it is this way rather than what I'd expected (same as readonly attributes)? I think authors should be able to rely on constants being, um, constant. No? It would make sense that way, yes. :) Since more browsers allowed overwriting it, I specced it that way. I have no idea if it is necessary for web compatibility. If Moz and Opera people are OK with it being changed to being ReadOnly, I can do that. Safari has always had these constants ReadOnly and we have not had any compatibility issues reported as a result, so far as I know. If it is not a compatibility issue, I think it makes more sense for constants to be constant. Regards, Maciej
Re: [WebIDL] Assigning to constants
Simon Pieters wrote:
What should happen when you assign something to a constant? e.g.:
Node.ELEMENT_NODE = 'Hello world';
Web IDL doesn't say, AFAICT. Firefox and Opera allow the assignment. In
WebKit it silently fails. I had expected an exception to be thrown, just
like for readonly attributes.
It'd be good if this was defined.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/Binding4DOM/#es-constants says the
property has attributes { DontDelete }. That would imply that it
doesn't have the ReadOnly attribute, and as such the assignment should
be allowed.
Re: [WebIDL] Assigning to constants
* Andrew Oakley wrote:
Simon Pieters wrote:
What should happen when you assign something to a constant? e.g.:
Node.ELEMENT_NODE = 'Hello world';
Web IDL doesn't say, AFAICT. Firefox and Opera allow the assignment. In
WebKit it silently fails. I had expected an exception to be thrown, just
like for readonly attributes.
It'd be good if this was defined.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/Binding4DOM/#es-constants says the
property has attributes { DontDelete }. That would imply that it
doesn't have the ReadOnly attribute, and as such the assignment should
be allowed.
With ReadOnly setting would be silently ignored, without ReadOnly you
know nothing.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
