From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Anne van Kesteren
> That's why I tried to scope this thread to upgrading and not the script side.
>
> The main question is how you tie MyInputElement to something like
> and have that actually work. It seems Dimitri
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> ... all instances of MyInputElement will get all internal slots and other
> exotic behavior of HTMLInputElement.
That's why I tried to scope this thread to upgrading and not the script side.
The main question is how you tie MyInputElemen
This is all intimately tied to the still-ongoing how-to-subclass-builtins
discussion that is unfortunately happening on a private TC39 thread. The
essential idea, however, is that as long as you do
```js
class MyInputElement extends HTMLInputElement {
constructor() {
super(); // this is ke
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dimitri Glazkov
> wrote:
> > Right, that's why to create a valid custom element that subclasses
> > HTMLInputElement, you should use type extensions. With type extensions,
> the
> > HTMLInputElement is wh
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> Right, that's why to create a valid custom element that subclasses
> HTMLInputElement, you should use type extensions. With type extensions, the
> HTMLInputElement is what's instantiated.
But without using type extensions this will work (pr
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Dimitri Glazkov
> wrote:
> > Yes to the first question. I wasn't planning on doing anything different
> > there.
>
> It seems simple prototype munging but not actually changing identity
> will fail for al
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> Yes to the first question. I wasn't planning on doing anything different
> there.
It seems simple prototype munging but not actually changing identity
will fail for all but the basic cases of subclassing. E.g. if I
subclass an HTMLInputElem
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Dimitri Glazkov
> wrote:
> > That section needs to be updated, because the ES6 spec had shifted a
> little
> > bit with regard to @@create. Filed
> > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27769.
>
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> That section needs to be updated, because the ES6 spec had shifted a little
> bit with regard to @@create. Filed
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27769.
Yeah, there's issues in general there, such as ES6 giving up on
explain
That section needs to be updated, because the ES6 spec had shifted a little
bit with regard to @@create. Filed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27769.
Conceptually, when I wrote it I'd imagined that the constructor will be
called only when you explicitly invoke it (new FooElement...)
It's not clear to me from
https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/#es6 how the upgrade
works. From the pre-ES6 setup you can work out through inference that
upgrading is supposed to mutate the prototype of the element in
question.
But it seems that mutating the prototype is not sufficient
11 matches
Mail list logo
