Should we make Range a subclass of StaticRange?

[chong-z]

According to the StaticRange.idl I found (not sure if that's the latest one) there are some duplicate methods with Range.

See @dtapuska comments below, do we still want to make it interface Range : StaticRange?

BTW would it be better to have the an idl inside this explainer?
Here is the idl #2 (comment)

[chong-z]

@dtapuska mentioned that StaticRange should be a subclass of Range, but the idl seems disagree.
@garykac @ojanvafai can we have a confirmation on this question? Thanks!

[dtapuska]

I recall that we were talking about changing Range to be a subclass of StaticRange...

ie: interface StaticRange
and
interface Range : StaticRange

I don't recall what the resolution was in January.

[garykac]

I recall it being mentioned, but there were concerns about changing the definition of Range. I don't recall details or specific concerns, however.

[chong-z]

@garykac thanks for the comments!

I'm currently working on StaticRange and is blocked on this issue (https://crrev.com/2022863002).
Can we keep these two separate for now, and maybe changing Range later if we decided to do so?

[garykac]

This issue was moved to w3c/staticrange#1