Maciej Stachowiak: > I don't have a personal opinion on which way is technically better > myself. But I think the key is getting our code aligned with where > standards are going, wether by changing he code or the standards. > EventTarget in the prototype chain seems neither especially awesome > nor especially terrible to me, it is not really clear to me why > editor's drafts of the listed specs decided to change.
I remember it being discussed at the TC39 meeting in November, as part of the general discussion we had about removing multiple inheritance from Web IDL. (It might not’ve been on the day that Sam was in the room, though.) EventTarget was brought up as the “mixin” that would probably want to have global monkeypatching done to it the most, and a suggestion was made to make interfaces like Node inherit from it. We do have https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612980 to make this change, too. With the very-soon-to-be-rewritten Web IDL single inheritance, if we just keep interface Node { ... }; interface EventTarget { ... }; Node implements EventTarget; then we lose the (future) ability to do var ael = EventTarget.prototype.addEventListener; EventTarget.prototype.addEventListener = function(a, b, c) { // do some logging ael.call(this, a, b, c); }; and have it affect all EventTargets, but you would still be able to get at Node.prototype.addEventListener (i.e., more easily than with the currently specified mixin prototype objects). So it’s probably not a great loss if we didn’t go ahead with Node inheriting from EventTarget. If there’s not a strong desire to implement this change, can someone bring it up on [email protected]? -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/ _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
