#437 closed enhancement (fixed)
Remove ancestor()/ancestors() in favor of parent()/parents()
Reported by: | joern | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | 1.1a |
Component: | core | Version: | 1.1a |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
Blocked by: | Blocking: |
Description
I don't think we need two ways to do exactly the same thing, and so far parent/parents is far more "popular".
Change History (9)
comment:1 Changed 16 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 16 years ago by
I agree. I am not sure why there are multiple ways of calling the exact same thing. Parents is better. Ancestors makes me think of mothballs and wagon trains.
comment:7 Changed 16 years ago by
I agree that the duplication is pointless and confusing.
The word 'parent' sounds to me more like just the next node up the tree, whereas 'ancestor' is anything above (although I see my dictionary says that 'parent' can mean 'ancestor' too). Also 'parent' can return one or more parents as we are working on a node set, so the pluralisation is confusing here.
Starting from scratch, I would go for either 'parent' and 'ancestor' or 'parents' and 'ancestors', but both are non-starters from where we are.
'parent' and 'ancestors' makes some sense, and that is what I've used in the past, but the pluralisation is a bit dubious.
So, by a roundabout route, I agree that 'parent' and 'parents' seems the best resolution.
comment:9 Changed 16 years ago by
Milestone: | → 1.1 |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | new → closed |
Done, in SVN rev 777.
I agree, it is actually confusing to have both. I am still not sure if parents() is an alias of ancestors() or not. The documentation for parents() shows ancestors() in its example.