Martin Bialasinski wrote: > On 12/10/06, Christophe Porteneuve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > RobG a écrit : > > > Aside from my two notes above, your replacement seems fine. Why don't > > you create a tested patch for it and file in a Trac ticket with it? > > Usage of the elements collection of the Form element has already been > rejected by Thomas in favor of the current implementation. > Unfortunately, the reasoning in favor for the current implementation > is not documented > > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/4249
Changing the elements nodeList to an Array means that the collection is no longer live - whether that was intended is another unknown. At least your suggested method preserves that side-effect with the minimum of fuss. Anyone wanting a live nodeList is back to using the DOM elements collection, or could use getElementsByTagName if that provides a suitable subset. I can't see any benefit in using getElement. Not only is it very inefficient, it also mangles the order of the elements in a way that may not be consistent across browsers - the properties of an object (such as when using for..in) do not have to be returned in any particular order. It has been an issue in the past where a particular order was expected, but some browsers returned them in the order they are added and others in some other order (say sorted alphabetically). -- Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" 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/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
