On Sep 25, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com>
wrote:
My positions are:
1. WebIDL, the bird in the hand (I agree with Sam: go invent
something
better, come back when you're done).
2. Don't keep perpetuating catchall patterns, they are confusing for
developers and costly for implementors and static analysis tools,
even if
implementable in some future ES edition.
3. Don't care.
Regarding 2. How do you feel about index accessors? I.e. for example
you can do:
myNode.children[5]
which returns the same as
myNode.children.item(5)
This seems equally impossible to implement in ECMAScript, but is
something that I think is helpful to authors so not something that I
want to stop adding to new interfaces.
Good point. I have mixed feelings, to be honest. See the ArrayLike
thread on es-discuss:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-May/009300.html
and followups. The one from Travis Leithead of Microsoft at:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-May/009363.html
links to http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-sequence, which has
words about an "Array host object":
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-array-host-object
This is new and different from the legacy collection/nodelist stuff,
which we can't change. Is it the new-model solution for index
accessors, or are you still wanting to make live "tree cursors" with
indexed getter and setter catchalls?
The live tree cursors always seemed like a mixed bag at best. Folks
want to use Array generic methods on them, and sometimes find the
liveness a problem. I've not heard anyone saying the liveness was a
crucial win.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
