- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:01:44 -0500
- To: Glen Huang <curvedmark@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Glen Huang <curvedmark@gmail.com> wrote: > Just realize that reversing the algorithm won’t work for > node.replace(nodes), where nodes contains multiple nodes. > > So yeah, replaceWith looks pretty good. > > > On Jan 12, 2015, at 8:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Glen Huang <curvedmark@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Or, the current algorithm of replace could be reversed, which should > eliminate such confusion. > > > > I think as James said that would leave the confusion. And given the > > precedent in libraries, replaceWith() seems good. > > > > > > -- > > https://annevankesteren.nl/ > > Yeah, libraries seem to have proven this out - unless there is a really compelling reason to violate this, replaceWith seems to be what it should be called. +1 to that. -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 21:02:10 UTC