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
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When someone says A replace B, I get the impression that B is no longer in
effect and A is the new one.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
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,
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
