On Nov 2, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> (3) I suspect that we can handle this without adding an IDL attribute at >> all. C++ overloaded functions could let the bindings do something different >> for objects that inherit ScriptWrappable from ones that do not in a generic >> way, without having to explicitly tell the bindings layer about the ways to >> do it. Consider the ways unwrap() and toJS() are done. We don't have to say >> anything special in the IDL or have any interface-specific knowledge in the >> bindings, C++ overloading takes care of it. > > That's a good idea. I'll see if we can avoid the IDL attribute. > > I wonder if we can do the same for the ActiveDOMObject IDL attribute, > which similarly announces the presence of a base class.
Good thought. ActiveDOMObject is a little different, because it implies some Web-observable behavior rather than just something about the mechanics of binding. But despite that, it's probably still better not to mention it in IDL if there is no technical need to do so. Regards, Maciej _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
