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
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
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,
On 2015-01-11 03:58, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Glen Huang wrote:
When someone says A replace B, I get the impression that B is no longer in
effect and A is the new one.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
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.
--
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote:
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
