Re: [whatwg/dom] Atomic move operation for element reparenting & reordering (Issue #1255)

> @WebReflection given that it's established that raw `moveBefore` has valid use cases, and we can perhaps add other variants or have something like `canMoveBefore` *in addition* do you mind opening another issue for these with those benchmarks and what not? This issue is becoming overloaded with too many comments about the same point.

@noamr I know this isn't targeted towards me, but the entire point of why we're even bringing this up is because we *don't* want the behavior to be throwing at all. Having it throw instead of falling back makes it very unnecessarily cumbersome for what's by far the common use case. (It also leaks abstractions.)

I've warned of this being a giant footgun repeatedly. **If anything should be deferred, it's the throwing variant.** Sure, it's is (slightly) larger of a feature. But what we all were really asking for is the one that falls back. **And falling back is what most consumers will expect when they see it.**

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/1255#issuecomment-2498839765
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/dom/issues/1255/2498839765@github.com>