- From: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:14:10 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Friday, October 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > > I didn't really get around to working on URLs this week like I > > planned, but I managed to draft the query API that was discussed in > > the last thread: > > > > http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlutils > > > > get() returns the first value. getAll() returns all values. set() > > either sets a single or multiple values. delete() well, deletes. > > > > Based on discussion in #whatwg > > http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20121012#l-981 I did not go > > with a design that would require proxies when implemented in > > JavaScript. > > > > Having said that, nothing is set in stone, bikeshed away! ;-) > > I definitely prefer the "design that would require proxies" - it feels > more natural to me. Glenn outlined a reasonable way to still mix in > the "getAll()" idiom. > > If we do stick with the method-based map, I strongly feel we should > match the JS Map API, and have a has() method as well. *Ideally*, > this would be a subclass of Map. > > That's awesome, I'm actually in the middle of writing up a mini-proposal for this using Map—looking at the current design it's basically an identical API, and of you want getAll()... Array.from(URLQuery) [ [key, val], [...]] I suspect spread will be upgraded as well (to allow conversion of iterables) Rick > > ~TJ
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 23:14:50 UTC