Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Sean Hogan wrote:
I'm not sure about all those objects, but my (incomplete) testing of
HTML*Collections indicates that when accessed using array notation:
object[index]; where index < object.length
they behave as a readonly array. Which has the fortuitous by-product of
allowing the object to work with Array.forEach(), etc.
Storage objects have a length property and can be accessed with array
notation. They look like they should work with Array generic methods...
and they do... except they aren't reliable if you use numeric keys...
but they don't even give an error message.
They work the same way as a collection does when one of the items in a
collection has a name that's numeric, e.g. document.images with an <img>
element whose name="" attribute has the value 0.
I would suggest one of:
1. When accessed as an array they are treated as a readonly array. i.e. MUST
use getItem(), setItem() for numeric keys
2. Treat it as an associative array. Change the name of the length property.
Storage works exactly like a collection in this respect; the values from 0
to length-1 override the names.
Ok, I think you're confirming that Storage objects will work
consistently with Array generic methods; the callback receiving a key
into the Storage object.
I obviously haven't been following this thread accurately.
