Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net writes:
* 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When someone says A replace B, I get the impression that B is no longer
in effect and A is the new one.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 what the
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:
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/
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When someone says A replace B, I get the impression that B is no longer in
effect and A is the new one.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
* 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 what the spec specifies.
To illustrate this, imagine
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
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think it would be worthwhile to change to a name that states the
intention a bit clearer?
The general preference is brevity over precision. And since methods
operate on the object they are invoked upon I think the
I have to agree with Glen on this one. Using `node1.replace(node2);` makes
me expect that `node1` will be replacing by `node2`.
jQuery is famous (and sometimes infamous, depending on who you talk to) for
its API brevity and yet we still chose longer names[1] for these scenarios:
`replaceWith` and
13 matches
Mail list logo
