Upon further thought, I take this suggestion back. Static NodeList as it currently exists is just an underpowered array, but that doesn't mean that's what it always has to be. In the future, we should add methods to NodeList that operate on Nodes, e.g. add a remove method to NodeList that call remove on all the Nodes in the NodeList. Also, in theory, browser may be able to optimize common cases of NodeLists (e.g. cache frequently accessed NodeLists). We should make static NodeList inherit from Array though so that you can do regular array operations on it. On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:29 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:06:00 +0100, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:06 PM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: > >>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:07:31 +0100, Rick Waldron < > waldron.rick@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> The NodeList item() method is a blocker. > >>> > >>> Blocker in what way? > >> > >> As I've always understood it - the item() method is what differentiates > NodeList from Array and blocks it from being "just an array". > >> > >> Is this incorrect? > > > > I think there is more, such as arrays being mutable, but the suggestion > was to change two accessors from mutation observers to return platform > array objects rather than NodeLists, which is a change we can still make > given that mutation observers is not widely deployed yet. > > I that case, very cool. Thanks for the clarification. > > > > > > > -- > > Anne van Kesteren > > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 02:24:54 UTC