for develoeprs I meant jQuery users too, being one of th emost popular API out there.
What I meant with jQuery#add method is that last thing added is the one returned, it does nto return the initial object, it returns the new result out of a merge but this is not the initial this, this is a new thing with latest added thing in. Br On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> clear for "us" ( Developers ) but also clear semantically speaking. >> >> As it is proposed now it looks like if a "setter" returns something which >> is the context while, again, when you set 99% of the time you don't want to >> do it separately in order to have that value back. >> >> You don't want to create another reference and you want "set" to do what >> you expect: set >> >> When you set, you implicitly point to the set value as it is for: >> >> return some.prop = someValue; >> >> var setValue = (obj.prop = someValue); >> >> var deflt = obj.prop || (obj.prop = value); >> >> this.doStuff( >> this.hasOwnProperty(key) ? >> this[key] : this[key] = computateThingOnce() >> ); >> >> And so on ... I think there are tons of use cases more frequent and used >> than this.set(key, value).get(key) ... I wonder how many times you have >> dreamed about var value = arr.push(some[data]); too >> > > My dream would be that push returned the array, so that I could > immediately operate on that array. > > > >> and going back to jQuery style, when you add something, the equivalent of >> set or add for Set, you point to the subset you have added, not the initial >> collection, isn't it ... >> http://api.jquery.com/add/ >> > > No, this returns a new jQuery object (ie. the array-like jQuery collection > of elements) that is the initial object merged with the newly added item > (pushed onto the end) and filtered for uniqueness: > > var elems = jQuery("body"); > > elems.add("div:first"); > // [ body, div ] > > elems.add("div:first"); > // [ body, div ] <-- "looks" the same > > The creation of a new jQuery object (via pushStack) is a legacy > mechanism—however the observable result is effectively the same as > set.add(something) => set, as elements.add(element) => newElements (as far > as any web developer's program semantics are concerned). > > > >> >> >> So developers prefer the added/set value, >> > > Three vocal posters to a mailing list do not represent "developers" as a > whole. There were more web developer originating committee members that > supported returning this. (I hate playing this game, it's not fun) > > > >> this is why I have asked who/why you decided for that, IMHO pointless, >> `this` as default return. >> > > I answered this directly in the first response. I proposed it, based on a > wealth of existing library code used on the web and the proposal was met > with significant support from within the committee. > > >> It just does not look right but sure it might have some use case ... the >> fact I had to think about them means already these are more rare than a >> classic returned value. >> >> +1 Smalltalk choice then >> > > All due respect, but JavaScript is not Smalltalk. Let's standardize on our > own established patterns. > > Rick > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
