On Oct 30, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: >> On 10/30/13 2:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >>> Those are the sort of objects, that we decided to explicitly exclude >>> from spread and for-of. >> >> Sure. The question is whether we can compatibly exclude them from >> sequence<T> in WebIDL. I expect we can. >> >> Anne, do you want to post to public-script-coord about this, or should I? > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23683 > > (I mostly asked here first since the other breaking changes to IDL to > align with JavaScript haven't been very popular. But maybe this is > indeed small enough to get away with.) >
Doesn't really depend upon the usage. If an API is going to return a sequence<T> to JS code, it really should have an @@iterator. But that is presumably a non-breaking change, from the JS perspective. If an API wants to accept a sequence<T> it only needs it to have an @@iterator if it is actually going to use JS iterator semantics to process. There is no reason that an implementation of such a consuming API couldn't do its own fall back to non-iterator based iteration. That would be a non-breaking solution. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
