Re: [whatwg] Confusion about node1.replace(node2)

[Glen Huang]

Thank you for the quick fix.

 On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
 
 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote:
 So yeah, replaceWith looks pretty good.
 
 Thanks: 
 https://github.com/whatwg/dom/commit/b7563aaf0864c8d104d18c36a9eda036c5205131
 
 
 -- 
 https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: [whatwg] Confusion about node1.replace(node2)

[Glen Huang]

Just realize that reversing the algorithm won’t work for node.replace(nodes), 
where nodes contains multiple nodes.

So yeah, replaceWith looks pretty good.

 On Jan 12, 2015, at 8:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
 
 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Or, the current algorithm of replace could be reversed, which should 
 eliminate such confusion.
 
 I think as James said that would leave the confusion. And given the
 precedent in libraries, replaceWith() seems good.
 
 
 -- 
 https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: [whatwg] Confusion about node1.replace(node2)

[Glen Huang]

Or, the current algorithm of replace could be reversed, which should eliminate 
such confusion.

 On Jan 12, 2015, at 6:41 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
 
 On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM, James M. Greene
 james.m.gre...@gmail.com wrote:
 jQuery is famous (and sometimes infamous, depending on who you talk to) for
 its API brevity and yet we still chose longer names for these scenarios:
 `replaceWith` and `replaceAll` (even including All in the latter to
 clarify that it operates on the entire context set, not just the first
 element).
 
 Dojo uses the same method names as well for their NodeList
 implementation: `replaceWith` and `replaceAll`.
 
 Thanks, that's compelling. Is it a problem for anyone if we rename
 replace to replaceWith?
 
 
 -- 
 https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: [whatwg] Confusion about node1.replace(node2)

[Glen Huang]

 And since methods operate on the object they are invoked upon I think the 
 name is clear
 enough.

The fact replace() is a method operating on an object doesn’t clarify the 
intention in this case,because the confusion here is that it’s unclear whether 
the object is having others take its place, or is itself trying take others’ 
place, and from the general meaning of the english word “replace”, it actually 
implies the latter.

 The general preference is brevity over precision.

In most cases, I favor brevity too, but when it starts to raise confusion, 
especially it’s implying the opposite of what it’s actually trying to do, 
brevity should no longer be a priority, IMHO.

[whatwg] Confusion about node1.replace(node2)

[Glen Huang]

Currently the DOM spec defines a replace() method in the ChildNode interface. I 
find the name for that method a bit misleading.

When someone says A replace B, I get the impression that B is no longer in 
effect and A is the new one. So when I do `node1.replace(node2)`, I can’t help 
but feel node2 is replaced with node1, which is the opposite of what the spec 
specifies.

Do you think it would be worthwhile to change to a name that states the 
intention a bit clearer? Maybe something like `node1.replacedWith(node2)`?