Re: IsElement() and nsIElement

On Apr 22, 8:01 pm, Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I'm looking at creating a non-virtual IsElement().
>
> While examining the callsites, it seems like a lot of the use is in
> assertions in places where we want to be sure we're dealing with an
> Element node.  Would it make sense to create an nsIElement for now,
> sitting between nsIContent and nsGenericElement, to just enforce this
> sort of invariant in function signatures?  Or should we just make such
> functions take nsGenericElement arguments?  Or maybe that plus rename
> nsGenericElement to mozilla::dom::Element or something?
>
> -Boris

I'm not a fan of the idea of spreading nsGenericElement around too
widely, but if we rename it mozilla::dom::Element I'd be ok with that.
But Ehsan does have a point in that it does contain a lot of internals
that are never really meant for code outside of the guts of our
elements, but those could of course be made protected etc. So I think
if we pay attention to that and protect the internals, it could work,
but writing a separate Element (or nsIElement) class would work for me
as well.