Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:51:33 +0200, John J Barton
<johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote:
Yes and Firebug has to have special code for HTMLCollection because
this mistake
was made in the past. Now we will have to have different special code
for
Storage. Rather than modeling new API on old mistakes, consider
learning from the past experience and take a direction that
developers will find less
confusing. Pseudo-arrays with "except... this and that" makes APIs
intricate and
puzzling. A simpler and less ambiguous approach would be better in my
opinion.
Is there any type of object that holds a collection that does not use
.length? Seems a bit weird to break consistency here in my opinion.
Consistency is exactly not wanted, because it creates the impression of
an array-like access pattern where there is not one. sessionStorage[2]
is not the third item stored. Actually I don't know what it is, I'm
confused.
There are lots of on-line articles explaining Javascript arrays versus
associative arrays (objects). By having a type which is an associative
array -- Storage -- share a property name with Array just makes matters
worse.
jjb
