Re: IDL interface rules

>
>
>>http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xpcom/interface-rules.html
>>    
>>
>
>Regarding the last point, isn't it considered incorrect to use
>|interface| to refer to something that isn't in IDL?  (I might be wrong
>here.)
>
>Isn't:
>
>%{ C++
>class nsIDeviceContext;
>%}
>
>[ptr] native nsIDeviceContextPtr(nsIDeviceContext);
>  
>

Actually, I disagree.. (I don't think any standard way of doing this has 
been decided)
Personally I think if its really an interface then it should say 
"interface" - because one interface shouldn't hardcode the 
non-scriptability of another interface... what happens if 
nsIDeviceContext becomes scriptable at some point. Do we have to tweak 
nsIContentViewer.idl now?

by declaring something "interface nsIFoo;" you let XPConnect determine 
at runtime if the (possibly now scriptable) interface is available.


>Also, it might be good to mention something about minimizing #include
>dependencies (good for compile time), especially when the #include is
>something that many consumers are not likely to need 
>

Agreed. I'll add something to that effect.

Alec