- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:57:24 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, John Resig <jeresig@gmail.com>, Paul Irish <paulirish@google.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
What Tab said = ) On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: >> On 20/10/11 3:50 AM, Alex Russell wrote: >>> >>> I strongly agree that it should be an Array *type*, but I think just >>> returning a plain Array is the wrong resolution to our NodeList >>> problem. WebIDL should specify that DOM List types *are* Array types. >>> It's insane that we even have a NodeList type which isn't a real array >>> at all. Adding a parallel system when we could just fix the one we >>> have (and preserve the value of a separate prototype for extension) is >>> wonky to me. >>> >>> That said, I'd *also* support the ability to have some sort of >>> decorator mechanism before return on .find() or a way to re-route the >>> prototype of the returned Array. >>> >>> +heycam to debate this point. >> >> Late replying here again, apologies, but I agree with others who say that an >> actual Array object should be returned from this new API given that it is >> not meant to be live. What benefit is there from returning a NodeList? > > If it's a NodeList (or something else that *subclasses* Array) we can > do fun things like add .find to it, which returns the sorted union of > calling .find on all the elements within it. Returning a plain Array > doesn't let us do that. > > ~TJ >
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 20:58:47 UTC