[whatwg] DOMTokenList is unordered but yet requires sorting

Sylvain Pasche sylvain.pasche at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 08:18:12 PDT 2009

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Jonas Sicking<jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
>> By the way, preserving duplicates shouldn't be much code complexity if
>> I'm not mistaken.
> I take it you mean *removing* duplicates here, right?

Oops, yes.

>> The only required code change would be to use a hashset when parsing
>> the attribute in order to only insert unique tokens in the token
>> vector. Then DOMTokenList.length would return the token vector length
>> and .item() get the token by index. I don't think anything actually
>> depends on keeping duplicate tokens in the token vector. Then there
>> would be a small perf hit when parsing attributes with more than one
>> token.
> It's certainly doable to do this at the time when the token-list is
> parsed. However given how extremely rare duplicated classnames are (I
> can't recall ever seeing it in a real page), I think any code spent on
> dealing with it is a waste.


>> The remove() algorithm is about 50 lines with whitespace and comments.
>> After all, that's not a big cost and I guess that preserving
>> whitespace may be closer to what DOMTokenList API consumers would
>> expect.
> The code would be 7 lines if we didn't need to preserve whitespace:
> nsAttrValue newAttr(aAttr);
> newAttr->ResetMiscAtomOrString();
> nsCOMPtr<nsIAtom> atom = do_GetAtom(aToken);
> while (newAttr->GetAtomArrayValue().RemoveElement(atom));
> nsAutoString newValue;
> newAttr.ToString(newValue);
> mElement->SetAttr(...);
> If you spent a few more lines of code you could even avoid serializing
> the token-list and call SetAttrAndNotify instead of SetAttr.

That's an interesting comparison. Less code and much more readable
than my remove() implementation I have to say.


More information about the whatwg mailing list