On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > 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. > In the future, it will be incredibly easy to make a NodeList into an Array with the spread operator: [ ...NodeList ] // [ node, node, node ] Rick > > > 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 02:28:00 UTC