The constructor should be exposed

[domenic]

That way you can do things like new Elements(document.query('#a'), document.query('#b')).queryAll('.c'). Similar to jQuery's $('#a').add($('#b')).find('.c'). Basically any situation where you might programmatically construct a set of elements.

[bloodyowl]

I gave some thoughts about it when I did the PR, and as Elements doesn't rely on a proper array subclass, is it really wise?

[domenic]

as Elements doesn't rely on a proper array subclass, is it really wise?

What do you mean?

[domenic]

Oh, I see, the constructor wasn't implemented correctly. Well, that seems like a bug...

[bloodyowl]

when the browser does not support __proto__ or Object.setPrototypeOf we would have inconsistencies across browsers (i.e. if we take the array from an iframe, no inheritance from array prototype)

not sure if a solution like this is really profitable for older browsers.

[barberboy]

Dominic, can you point me to any documentation about the Elements constructor? It looks like you are wanting different behavior than the Array constructor anyway, like flattening array-like arguments.

[domenic]

No, it just inherits the Array constructor.