Le 23/08/2013 14:30, Nic Jansma a écrit : > One of the original reasons for only exposing the .getEntries() family > of functions (which return copies of the array) vs. a > performance.entries array that the user can directly access, is that > the PerformanceTimeline array may be changing at any point in time. > Entries can be added to the end or middle of the array Oh ok, I had missed that part completely. It could be possible to make things work with a single array, but may be much more annoying (both for implementor and consumer of the array) indeed. > For these reasons, we chose to simplify things and only expose the > .getEntries() family, which return static copies of the > PerformanceTimeline at-that-point-in-time that will never change. Ok, sounds good. David
Received on Friday, 23 August 2013 13:16:54 UTC