I don't see any direct references to either isParent or isChildNode in
any of our code here at Mochi, so I don't care ;)
-bob
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Per Cederberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Attempting two answers in one below...
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Jason Bunting
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Who is Noone? :P
>
> Sigh... The endless joys we bring you native English speakers... ;-)
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Christoph Zwerschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hm, if I read the code correctly, then there is another difference,
>> namely that isChildNode also returns true if the second node is not the
>> direct parent, but also for grandparents and any ancestors. So it should
>> be actually renamed to something like isDescendant or isAncestor.
>
> Both actually do that. But isParent() does it through recursion
> instead of iteration:
>
> isParent: function (child, element) {
> var self = MochiKit.DOM;
> if (typeof(child) == "string") {
> child = self.getElement(child);
> }
> if (typeof(element) == "string") {
> element = self.getElement(element);
> }
> if (child == null || element == null) {
> return false;
> } else if (!child.parentNode || child == element) {
> return false;
> } else if (child.parentNode == element) {
> return true;
> } else {
> return self.isParent(child.parentNode, element);
> }
> },
>
> I totally agree on the naming. Should be named as you propose, but I
> don't see us changing the API right now though... :-(
>
> Cheers,
>
> /Per
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MochiKit" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
