- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:26:08 +1200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky: > Defining an expando needs to make sure that there is no element in the > collection that has that name/id. But that information is maintained > lazily, so typically the expando definition will need to first make sure > the collection's state is up to date and then go and check whether any > of the items in the collection have that name or id. This last bit > could be fast if the collection maintains some sort of hashtable mapping > names to elements, or it might involve checking each node in the collection. OK, understood. > >Also, if there’s a scheme that isn’t slow that you would prefer (and has > >the desired compatibility characteristics), I’m happy to consider > >changing to that. > > I'm not quite sure there is... I haven't thought of one yet, at least. > > I assume letting property definitions define the property but have the > getter keep shadowing it as long as something in the collection has that > name, is too crazy, for example. ;) I wondered about that approach. I think it isn’t too crazy; it at least features a different kind of consistency. :) The current design is only slightly less surprising. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 04:26:55 UTC