Re: [WebIDL] A new way to define UnionTypes

2012-08-29 Thread Adam Barth
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 8/29/12 7:59 AM, Andrei Bucur wrote: I was wondering if it would make sense to use supplemental interfaces as a way to generate union types, like in this example: X implements S Y implements S Z implements S

Re: [WebIDL] A new way to define UnionTypes

2012-08-29 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 8/29/12 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote: It's not impossible in IDL. In fact, it's remarkably easy to define in IDL. We just don't want to implement multi-inheritance in WebKit because it's slow. However, I don't see how Andrei's proposal makes the implementation any more efficient. Well,

RE: [WebIDL] A new way to define UnionTypes

2012-08-29 Thread Andrei Bucur
It's not impossible in IDL. In fact, it's remarkably easy to define in IDL. We just don't want to implement multi-inheritance in WebKit because it's slow. However, I don't see how Andrei's proposal makes the implementation any more efficient. The proposal tries to reduce the issue this

Re: [WebIDL] A new way to define UnionTypes

2012-08-29 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 8/29/12 12:40 PM, Andrei Bucur wrote: It's not impossible in IDL. In fact, it's remarkably easy to define in IDL. We just don't want to implement multi-inheritance in WebKit because it's slow. However, I don't see how Andrei's proposal makes the implementation any more efficient. The

Re: [WebIDL] A new way to define UnionTypes

2012-08-29 Thread Adam Barth
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 8/29/12 12:40 PM, Andrei Bucur wrote: It's not impossible in IDL. In fact, it's remarkably easy to define in IDL. We just don't want to implement multi-inheritance in WebKit because it's slow. However, I don't see