Rename clients.getAll()

[jakearchibald]

…since it has filtering options that filter by default.

@annevk suggested .get(), but does that suggest a singular return?

Could be .matchAll() like the caches.

[jungkees]

.get() sounds more like getting a singular result.
.getAll(options) still LGTM as it suggests "get all the clients which meet the options which are happen to be controlled window by default for convenience. (It can get actually all.)"
But in case people still think it's not natural, .matchAll() seems fine to me too.

[KenjiBaheux]

Proactively filed http://crbug.com/451334 for Blink, pending a decision.

[jakearchibald]

@annevk still unhappy with getAll? Other suggestions are matchAll, queryAll.

[annevk]

I don't see how All makes sense given that it doesn't return all of them by default. Also, none of those names signifies that you are getting back copies rather than references.

[mvano]

How about just filter or match?

[slightlyoff]

@mvano: would we need to pun filter with Array.prototype.filter?

I'll go with whatever this group likes, but @mvano's match and .matchAll() as previously suggested sound good to me. They're at least internally consistent with the identity semantics that @annevk is worried about.

[mvano]

would we need to pun filter with Array.prototype.filter?

Not sure what pun means in this context, but I recognize the potential confusion of having a method with the same name but different functionality on different classes. The same issue exists with String.prototype.match. I don't find this a major issue though. In an object oriented design you have natural namespacing and no real conflict.

[inexorabletash]

Since we're bikeshedding... how about getClients() ?

Yeah, self.clients.getClients() is a bit weird. But it does exactly what it says on the tin.

[jakearchibald]

Lets go with matchAll. Matches caches.matchAll which has a similar arg with filtering rules.

[wanderview]

Tracked in gecko here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1130685

[ZhuoyuQian]

Commit a CL here:
https://codereview.chromium.org/892053003/