Ok. Since you showed both returning constructors, I just assumed in both cases the returned constructor would be different, if required by platform.
I guess my attitude is to say "always write it like this MyThing = document.register(...), because depending on your runtime scenario it may return a different method." Yes, it's not ideal, but then there is only one way to write it. On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@google.com>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Scott Miles <sjmi...@google.com> wrote: > > > Well, yes, here ya go: (o). But I must be missing something. You wouldn't > > propose two APIs if they were equivalent, and I don't see how these are > not > > (in any meaningful way). > > The only difference is that one spits out a generated constructor, and > the other just returns a constructor unmodified (well, not in a > detectable way). My thinking was that if we have both be one and the > same API, we would have: > > 1) problems writing specification in an interoperable way ("if you can > override [[Construct]] function, then do this...") > > 2) problems with authors seeing different effects of the API on each > browser ("in Webcko, I get the same object as I passed in, maybe I > don't need the return value, oh wait, why does it fail in Gekit?") > > Am I worrying about this too much? > > :DG< >