I keep finding the frame problem overrated, specially in this case where the case you are passing DOM nodes between frames is ... well, extremely edge?
If NodeList.prototype is instanceof Array then this check is all you need before Array.isArray(nl) but generally speaking I agree is never that easy to understand what's utterable "as if it is" an Array, i.e. live collections as well such getElementsByTagName() obj instanceof Array || Array.isArray(obj) || ( typeof obj.length === "number" && ~~obj.length === obj.length && (typeof obj != "function" || 0 in obj) ) // latter for functions used as ArrayLike objects so that Arguments, NodeList, LiveCollections, and Arrays, should all pass this test and we can iterate with common Array.prototype[extras] method Do you see problems with above checks ? Anything I am not considering ? br On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Domenic Denicola < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 20:37, "Rick Waldron" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Erik Arvidsson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 17:28, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > As in, its [[Class]] is "Array" and Array.isArray( nodes ) would >>> evaluate to >>> > true? >>> >>> No, it means that Object.getPrototypeOf(NodeList.prototype) === >>> Array.prototype. >>> >> >> Yes, this part was clear in the links you sent. The question I had was >> about two things that were not addressed in the links (that I could see, >> please correct if I missed them) >> >> There will be much confusion on the web if Array.isArray(nodes) returns >> false, while nodes.push( node ), nodes.slice( 0, 2 ) "just work", >> especially during periods of transition from DOMx to DOM4. >> >> >> Rick >> >> >> >>> Fortunately all the Array.prototype methods are generic so it all just >>> works. >>> >>> -- >>> erik >>> >> >> >> I think the benefits are so great I'm happy to deal with any confusion. >> > >> Although, it sounds like I'll be wanting to go back to `instanceof >> Array`, which is kind of funny. >> > > `instanceof Array` is unreliable across contexts (ie. frames) whereas > Object.prototype.toString.call( thing ) === "[object Array]" is > irrefutable... That said, I'm sure there is also plenty of code that that > still expects Object.prototype.toString.call( nodelist ) === "[object > NodeList]" (as unadvisable as that might be) > > > Rick > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
