- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:17:45 -0700
- To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Cc: Julien Richard-Foy <julien@richard-foy.fr>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote:
>> And .push/.pop or other mutating functions wouldn't work.
>
> Right. I'm only talking about the methods that are already generic
> and work with anything that looks like an Array: filter, forEach,
> every, etc.
.push and .pop are generic and work on anything that looks like an
Array. However they don't work on NodeList because NodeList isn't
mutable.
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Julien Richard-Foy
>> <julien@richard-foy.fr> wrote:
>>> All mutable functions will work (forEach, map, etc.) and bring a better expressiveness to the code.
>>
>> Not if he 'this' object is a NodeList.
>
> This works fine right now:
>
> alert(
> [].filter.call(document.querySelectorAll("*"), function(elem) {
> return elem.textContent.length > 6 })
> .map(function(elem) { return elem.tagName })
> .join(", ")
> );
>
> And I use that pattern a *lot*, but it's both verbose and extremely
> unintuitive. Why can't that be just this?
>
> alert(
> document.querySelectorAll("*")
> .filter(function(elem) { return elem.textContent.length > 6 })
> .map(function(elem) { return elem.tagName })
> .join(", ")
> );
None of these are *mutable* functions.
/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 23:18:50 UTC