- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:03:11 -0700
- To: Julien Richard-Foy <julien@richard-foy.fr>
- Cc: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Julien Richard-Foy <julien@richard-foy.fr> wrote: > > On 25 août 2011, at 08:33, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>>> I agree with this, but it might be too late to make this change. >>>> >>>> The problem is that if we returned an Array object, it would not have >>>> a .item function, which the currently returned NodeList has. >>>> >>>> I guess we could return a Array object and add a .item function to it. >>> >>> Or return a NodeList and add .forEach/.filter/etc. to it? >> >> That works, but what is the advantage? And .push/.pop or other >> mutating functions wouldn't work. > > All mutable functions will work (forEach, map, etc.) and bring a better expressiveness to the code. Not if he 'this' object is a NodeList. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 07:04:08 UTC