I would like to add two more functions which should IMO be merged for simplification: "getElement()" and "getFirst()".
I got confused on which to use... Right. Now. On Oct 10, 9:31 pm, Sanford Whiteman <[email protected]> wrote: > > I fully agree. I don't like grab, nor do I like the element getters except > > getElements. > > FWIW... I'm quite comfortable with the easily-understood separation > and meaning of most of these methods, as opposed to overloading a > single method and/or requiring an object to simulate named parameters. > > For example, I often use getEls and getChildren with no params. If you > combine these: > > · it might be getAnything(selector,depth) which means I have to pass a > null/empty selector half the time, and the method isn't > self-explanatory with the unnamed second param > > · if it's getAnything({[selector:selector],[depth:depth]}) where every > non-default is a named param, well, just looks inelegant to me > > · if it's using type detection, like getAnything([string > Selector],[object Options{[depth:depth]}]), I see how that would be > the most streamlined from an API standpoint since we could still have > at least some chance of using simple syntax, but it seems like a lot > of work for you, with not enough payoff > > Is there another tack that you guys have in mind? > > I see methods with a limited number of params, and separation of > methods by return value, as pretty common and comfortable JS/DOM > paradigms. Look at querySelector and querySelectorAll. As far as I can > read in the WHATWG logs, which are of course very recent, there wasn't > any serious suggestion of querySelector([all=false]). Or take the > xxxx/xxxxNS pairs. > > As for adopt() and grab(), I admit I never use grab(), but as long as > core methods like apply() and call() are both still around, I don't > find this so bad. If anything, it makes Moo seem like a seamless > extension of core JS, keeping you aware of your surroundings. I like > that! > > We'll live with whatever changes you make, but it doesn't seem so > out-of-whack to me. > > -- Sandy
