On 12/20/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/20/06, Martijn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So would thes popular JS libraries stop using those names if
> document.getElementById was called document.id for example?
Who can say?
I can't say, but I don't think they would stop.
> > I guess that's the nice thing about getElementsBySelector. It's like
> > picking 6 names all at once. :)
>
> I don't think getElementsBySelector is picking 6 names at once at all.
I've been doing experimental implementations of
document.getElementsBy* methods and I'm willing to guarantee that it
is effectively picking many names. I can't even remember the ones I'm
working on. The problem is that it requires JavaScript programmers to
type 22 characters before encountering characters that uniquely
identify it, and 19 characters before it's clear that the method will
return a NodeList. The JS library authors of the world seem to
understand this argument.
Typing 7 character is indeed shorter than typing 22 characters, so
yes, I would prefer to type 7 characters.
But I think it's more important to have a function name that makes it
more or less clear what it is doing and that's consistent with
existing function names.
If XPath can use "evaluate"[1], I don't see what's wrong with
"matchSingle/matchAll".
Well, I don't really like that name either.
Regards,
Martijn
--
Robert Sayre
[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-XPath/xpath.html#XPathEvaluator-evaluate>
--
Martijn Wargers
Help Mozilla!
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/qa/
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/
