13363 2011-07-26 03:31:41 +0000 The MediaStream(MediaStream parentStream) constructor seems to be confusing the ordinary copy constructor behavior. Could it be an operation of MediaStream rather than a constructor? 2012-07-18 18:41:20 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED NEEDSINFO http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#interface-definitions P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian ian mike shiki.okasaka contributor oldest_to_newest 51470 0 contributor 2011-07-26 03:31:41 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video-conferencing-and-peer-to-peer-communication.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#interface-definitions Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#interface-definitions Comment: The MediaStream(MediaStream parentStream) constructor seems to be confusing the ordinary copy constructor behavior. Could it be an operation of MediaStream rather than a constructor? Posted from: 114.174.180.16 by shiki.okasaka@gmail.com User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0 54271 1 ian 2011-08-05 23:36:50 +0000 The Web doesn't have any copy constructors... is this really a problem? 54461 2 shiki.okasaka 2011-08-09 16:43:20 +0000 You're correct; currently this issue only hits our Web IDL compiler for C++0x binding, and technically this is not a problem in ECMAScript. e.g., MediaStream(MediaStream parentStream); // C++ error: invalid constructor; you probably meant 'MediaStream(const MediaStream&)' If there's no other way in the HTML specification, we will find a way to work around it. However I think it would be nice if the use of this type of constructors is generally avoided in Web IDL. This might be compared to the 'new Object(value)' pattern in ECMAScript which simply returns value.