Hi all,
I stumbled across the following method definition in an IDL:
void doSomething(in nsIIDRef iid,[iid_is(iid)] in nsISupports s);
Note that the last param specified iid_is, but is "in".
I understand that it doesn't make a real lot of sense, but my question
simply is "is it legal"?
Searching around the docs, I find
http://www.mozilla.org/scriptable/xpidl/notes/keywords.txt, which states:
"""
iid_is // used to say that some other param indicates at runtime
// the interfcace type for this out param (in [])
"""
I also found
http://www.mozilla.org/scriptable/xpidl/idl-authors-guide/keywords.html,
which says:
"""
Used to declare that some other param indicates (at runtime) the
interface type for this out param. You almost certainly won't need to
use this.
"""
So the docs seem to imply it is _not_ legal. However, xpidl lets it
pass without warning.
The bigger problem is when Python (and possibly js - haven't tried yet)
attempts to call nsIInterfaceInfo::GetIIDForParam() - xptcall asserts in
this block:
if(XPT_TDP_TAG(td->prefix) != TD_INTERFACE_TYPE) {
NS_ASSERTION(0, "not an interface");
return NS_ERROR_INVALID_ARG;
}
So - it seems we have a bug _somewhere_. My question is where :-)
Should this be considered a bug in xpidl for allowing that construct, or
in xptcall for failing to get the IID?
Thanks,
Mark.
