Re: Behavior of matches() and closest() with :scope()

On 9/1/14, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=886308#c29 bz points
> out that I introduced a regression relative to the old definition of
> matches() with the new hook in Selectors.
>

Who decided to take the name matchesSelector and rename it to matches?

> I guess the way to fix this for matches() would be to add a :scope
> elements argument. What about closest(), should it have that argument
> too?
>

Closest what -- ancestor? parent? sibling? I've never been a fan of
jQuery, but the method names there are actually quite a bit less bad.
-- 
Garrett
@xkit
ChordCycles.com
garretts.github.io

Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 22:06:14 UTC