<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Improve binding of JSBuiltinConstructor classes"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149556#c5">Comment # 5</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Improve binding of JSBuiltinConstructor classes"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149556">bug 149556</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:darin@apple.com" title="Darin Adler <darin@apple.com>"> <span class="fn">Darin Adler</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=149556#c4">comment #4</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=149556#c3">comment #3</a>)
> > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=149556#c2">comment #2</a>)
> > > This is not what we want, we want a new object each time.
> >
> > Why?
>
> All other wrapper classes have that behavior.
> I think (jsObject == toJS(toWrapped(jsObject))) is true for all classes for
> instance.
> Breaking that behavior might not break any existing code but this looks
> misleading to me.</span >
Sure, slightly inelegant, but I’m almost certain it will work just fine.
<span class="quote">> Removing generation of that code (toJS, toWrapped, Wrapper owner code) for
> JS builtin constructed classes makes sense to me, whether we keep a dummy
> DOM class or not.
>
> With limited refactoring, this might be healthy for the binding generator
> code as well.</span >
Sure.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>