W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2012

Re: [whatwg] URL: URLQuery

From: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:27:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHfnhfpixLPs8-C4V6YT6HzYTZ1OZ8wGBq1T_KaqJzevZcaBKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >  As you might have noticed, JS started adding things like Map in part
> > because the native dictionary-like access has one significant problem: it
> > looks up the prototype chain.
> >
>
> You mean, people putting extra properties on things like Object.prototype
> or DOMStringMap.prototype, and breaking code doing for(a in {})?  I don't
> find that to be a problem: that's nuts, so I don't do it.
>
> It probably wouldn't hurt to actually prevent this from happening in the
> first place, though, which I think is what you're suggesting below.
>
> Unless the suggestion is that Object.getPrototypeOf(query.values) === null?
> >
>
> That, or making the prototype immutable, as if Object.freeze was called on
> it.
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
> wrote:
>
> > Where did .values come from?
>
>
> To avoid putting object-like access and member methods on the same
> interface.
>
> I just want to make sure that if we're not using the native getter/setter
> syntax, we're doing it for the right reasons.  The argument for "never
> exposing any APIs that require proxies to implement in JavaScript" seems
> weak.  "APIs shouldn't both act like dictionaries and have other methods on
> the same object" is a good idea (and not a new one), but that's a smaller
> set.
>
> Maybe it's not worth having two interfaces (URLQuery and whatever
> query.values is called) to avoid that--I don't know if that adds a lot of
> complexity--but that's a separate question.
>
> (And you reversed get()/set() right?)
> >
>
> Yeah.
>
>
> > It was a more limited version of this interface (the problem with
> > length was more about what would happen if you would add such a
> > member):
> >
>
> Don't do that--if an object acts like a dictionary, it should have no
> members of its own.
>
>
> > I don't know about JavaScript Map as to whether that would be reusable
> > in some way. We have some special requirements from last thread:
> >
> > * Keys can have more than one value.
> > * Keys are ordered behind the scenes.
> >
> > If it is reusable that would be great. I guess Web IDL then needs to
> > be updated somehow to give us some hooks.
> >
>
> FWIW, map apparently doesn't yet have iteration (according to
>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Map
> ),
> which I assume is wanted here.
>

This is not up-to-date.

Map will construct objects that implement iterator protocol (for-of) as
well as a forEach method. Firefox Nightly has the most current
implementation but is still missing forEach.


Rick


> Where would extra WebIDL hooks be needed--isn't this just a regular WebIDL
> interface to line up with?
>
> --
> Glenn Maynard
>
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2012 21:28:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:11 GMT