On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Julien Richard-Foy <jul...@richard-foy.fr> wrote: > > On 25 août 2011, at 08:33, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Aryeh Gregor <a...@aryeh.name> wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: >>>> I agree with this, but it might be too late to make this change. >>>> >>>> The problem is that if we returned an Array object, it would not have >>>> a .item function, which the currently returned NodeList has. >>>> >>>> I guess we could return a Array object and add a .item function to it. >>> >>> Or return a NodeList and add .forEach/.filter/etc. to it? >> >> That works, but what is the advantage? And .push/.pop or other >> mutating functions wouldn't work. > > All mutable functions will work (forEach, map, etc.) and bring a better > expressiveness to the code.
Not if he 'this' object is a NodeList. / Jonas