- From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 19:04:19 +0000
- To: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Dean Edwards <dean.edwards@gmail.com>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Eric Devine <devineej@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
From: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com> > This is nothing more than a whim, but would a Set subclass be more appropriate? Possibly (although I don't think it would solve the "typed" problem at all; you'd just do `Set.prototype.add.call(elementsInstance, notAnElement)`). It conceptually seems better. However the ergonomics are pretty bad, and it's not what developers have been asking for (something jQuery-like). If sets had a *lot* more methods, it'd be more of a possibility. Also maybe if we were sure developers had embraced them. (Side tangent: I am hopeful the ES7-proposed bind operator + libraries of `this`-using "itertools" functionality can prevent us from having to add tons of methods to every collection class, and thus make `Set` and so on more useful without having to wait for standards-body work. Just an idle dream though...)
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 19:05:37 UTC