- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:35:44 +0200
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Domenic Denicola
<domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> From: Anne van Kesteren [annevk@annevk.nl]
>
>> The array returned would be a copy of the underlying values and modifying it would not modify URLQuery. Similar if we keep the name getAll() for that.
>
> So `q.get('key') !== q.get('key')`? That would make this even more un-Map-like.
That would be the case in the API that Anne proposes at the beginning
of this thread. It would not be the case in the API that is currently
drafted. However in the API that's currently drafted
q.getAll('key') !== q.getAll('key');
would test true.
I agree that returning the same Array would be nice. However that
seems really hard to do while also exposing the fact that the
name/value pairs aren't always grouped by the same name.
/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 15:36:45 UTC