W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 13:24:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAWbaTL__j11w9Z0J=_f1ndEDrqN2EkPsZhfjHMGFo70g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> ES6 already has an Array.prototype.find method so you would probably want to
> name your 'find' method 'findSelector'  or something else. Perhaps, it
> shouldn't even include the word 'find' because it isn't clear to me that the
> result is necessarily an element of the original collection.  Why not just
> call these methods of Elements  'querySelector' and 'querySelectorAll'?

Yeah, now that we have Array#find, I think "find" isn't the best name
for this.  We were using it because that's what jQuery used.

We don't want qS or qSA, because those names are way too long.
However, IRC chatter led to the discussion of using "select()" as the
method name, which seems pretty good.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>>> We can't prevent people from writing poor code, but we don't have to be an enabler of it.
>> As I understand things, part of the goal of TC39 is to be able to
>> explain the platform in terms of JavaScript. Currently the platform
>> has a ton of these identity checks. "Is /x/ a node", "is /x/ an
>> element", etc. We should be able to explain those and I hope that
>> symbols are going to give us that, although it will depend on the
>> specifics I suppose.
> Actually, for ES6 it's looking like WeakArray is going to be your best bet for cases where such tests where the branding really needs to be unforgeable.

Do you mean WeakSet, or is there some WeakArray object that's going to
be added later?  (I guess an ordered WeakSet, more or less?)

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 20:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:17 UTC