`= {}` can now be used to indicate that an optional dictionary should have the
default value of 'default-initialized dictionary'
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D36504
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
`= {}` can now be used to indicate that an optional dictionary should have the
default value of 'default-initialized dictionary'
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D36504
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
`= {}` can now be used to indicate that an optional dictionary should have the
default value of 'default-initialized dictionary'
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D36504
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
This patch was generated by my modeline.py script.
MozReview-Commit-ID: EbVjPLwiUAT
Depends on D4159
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D4161
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
Some notes: this does not fully bring us to compliance to the current spec.
Instead, these are the fixes that I needed to make in order to make
css/geometry/interfaces.html pass with the DOMPoint changes in the previous
patches. I don't fully understand why that patch caused the test to fail the
way it did, but it ended up being easier to fix our code than understand why
the harness was falling over.
The DOMQuad::QuadBounds class was the source of some confusion for me. Now
that DOMRectReadOnly is a concrete class with members, I wanted to avoid
wasting them. However, the spec is unclear as to whether a DOMQuad's bound's
should be live -- that is because DOMQuad exposes DOMPoint, we can set its
points after retrieving a QuadBounds object. Our current code is live, setting
the points changes the QuadBounds. Chromium's current behavior is to never
update the QuadBounds object. I've left our behavior untouched in this patch
(and waste 4 doubles per QuadBounds object), but I am intending to file a bug
to understand what the intent of the spec is. I wonder if the author intended
the points to be DOMPointReadOnly instead. If so, we could simplify the
DOMRectReadOnly code and get rid of the virtual getters, which would be nice.
I also wasn't thrilled to put the DOMMatrix setters on the DOMMatrixReadOnly
class, but for brevity and simplicity of implementation, I've made them
public. I briefly considered making the setters protected on the ReadOnly
version of the class, but I'm not convinced that having to explicitly make
them public on the derived class is worth the extra copies of the names.
MozReview-Commit-ID: CjdW4Nbnc6A
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 44489693afebff571a415b487e29fa6153288421
Some notes: this does not fully bring us to compliance to the current spec.
Instead, these are the fixes that I needed to make in order to make
css/geometry/interfaces.html pass with the DOMPoint changes in the previous
patches. I don't fully understand why that patch caused the test to fail the
way it did, but it ended up being easier to fix our code than understand why
the harness was falling over.
The DOMQuad::QuadBounds class was the source of some confusion for me. Now
that DOMRectReadOnly is a concrete class with members, I wanted to avoid
wasting them. However, the spec is unclear as to whether a DOMQuad's bound's
should be live -- that is because DOMQuad exposes DOMPoint, we can set its
points after retrieving a QuadBounds object. Our current code is live, setting
the points changes the QuadBounds. Chromium's current behavior is to never
update the QuadBounds object. I've left our behavior untouched in this patch
(and waste 4 doubles per QuadBounds object), but I am intending to file a bug
to understand what the intent of the spec is. I wonder if the author intended
the points to be DOMPointReadOnly instead. If so, we could simplify the
DOMRectReadOnly code and get rid of the virtual getters, which would be nice.
I also wasn't thrilled to put the DOMMatrix setters on the DOMMatrixReadOnly
class, but for brevity and simplicity of implementation, I've made them
public. I briefly considered making the setters protected on the ReadOnly
version of the class, but I'm not convinced that having to explicitly make
them public on the derived class is worth the extra copies of the names.
MozReview-Commit-ID: CjdW4Nbnc6A
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 97e9386cfb17319242913d28117c8b1b8b6fbbbe
The most recent specification gives DOMPointReadOnly a constructor as well as
a static fromPoint method.
This fixes several failing wpt tests.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 4mPhMm5yhJA
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : d8159b38330c990672f99dbc748a739eced5e6a2
The Web IDL for DOMPoint no longer has this constructor. As far as I can tell,
it is still unused, so let's follow the spec.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 6Lz1BN5YAV5
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 04b70b673e63d7cea1e528009526285a4af8f472
DOMPointReadOnly is not currently used by anything but it's in the spec so we
might as well support it. It would be useful for adding "topLeft"-style APIs
to DOMRect.
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 8df6b51b3305e91c7c7693128e70e3e928d44b27
DOMPointReadOnly is not currently used by anything but it's in the spec so we
might as well support it. It would be useful for adding "topLeft"-style APIs
to DOMRect.
DOMPointReadOnly is not currently used by anything but it's in the spec so we
might as well support it. It would be useful for adding "topLeft"-style APIs
to DOMRect.
Kagami Sascha Rosylight
Boris Zbarsky
Cosmin Sabou
Mihai Alexandru Michis
Andrew McCreight
Blake Kaplan
Narcis Beleuzu
shindli
Robert O'Callahan
Ryan VanderMeulen
Carsten "Tomcat" Book