- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:10:49 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22391 --- Comment #11 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> --- > I am no longer convinced this is a bad pattern, if done correctly. For what it's worth, the usual arguments I've heard against live lists fall into two categories: 1) They're hard to iterate over: you have to make sure that nothing modifies the list as a side-effect while you're iterating. Here's a common pitfall people fall into, for example: var kids = myNode.childNodes; for (var i = 0; i < kids.length; ++kids) { myNode.removeChild(kids[i]); } 2) They impose a performance burden on implementations that have to update the list whenever the set of things it reflects changes. This is maybe counterbalanced by the fact that live lists can sometimes do less work than non-live ones (e.g. getElementsByTagName("foo")[0] doesn't have to walk the whole DOM, just until it finds the first <foo>). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 21:10:51 UTC