On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote: >>> The problem with "<shadow> as function" is that the superclass implicitly >>> selects nodes based on a CSS selector so unless the nodes a subclass wants >>> to insert matches exactly what the author of superclass considered, the >>> subclass won't be able to override it. e.g. if the superclass had an >>> insertion point with select="input.foo", then it's not possible for a >>> subclass to then override it with, for example, an input element wrapped in >>> a span. >> >> So what if we flipped this as well and came up with an imperative API >> for "<shadow> as a function". I.e. "<shadow> as an actual function"? >> Would that give us agreement? > > We object on the basis that "<shadow> as a function" is fundamentally > backwards way of doing the inheritance. If you have a MyMapView and define a > subclass MyScrollableMapView to make it scrollable, then MyScrollableMapView > must be a MyMapView. It doesn't make any sense for MyScrollableMapView, for > example, to be a ScrollView that then contains MyMapView. That's has-a > relationship which is appropriate for composition. > > - R. Niwa >
Is there really a hard need for inheritance over composition? Won't composition ability + an imperative API that allows you to properly delegate to the stuff you contain be just fine for a v1? -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
