Re: Behavior of matches() and closest() with :scope()
Garrett Smith <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.dom.general,gmane.comp.web.css.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABZUbM3q5+i_1YxkMtZ6eb7M4Db+Q8bZ9rWKvyrCLYiHFuq4HQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On 9/1/14, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=886308#c29 bz points > out that I introduced a regression relative to the old definition of > matches() with the new hook in Selectors. > Who decided to take the name matchesSelector and rename it to matches? > I guess the way to fix this for matches() would be to add a :scope > elements argument. What about closest(), should it have that argument > too? > Closest what -- ancestor? parent? sibling? I've never been a fan of jQuery, but the method names there are actually quite a bit less bad. -- Garrett @xkit ChordCycles.com garretts.github.io