On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For what is worth it , I don't believe "everyone does it like that" has > ever been a valid argument. Maybe everyone simply copied a pattern from > jQuery without even thinking if it was needed or it was the best. > > Br > Agreed. You don't make a band that makes crappy music because most other bands do too. You don't jump in the well if I do. We don't have to make bad API decisions because the cows have paved a path to the butcher's. It's not ignoring the norm, we acknowledge it and make our choices with that knowledge, but we don't necessarily have to follow the norm. Cheers, Jussi > On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Rick Waldron wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nathan Wall <nathan.w...@live.com>wrote: >> >>> > Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:03:57 -0800 >>> > From: bren...@mozilla.org >>> >>> > Subject: Re: (Map|Set|WeakMap)#set() returns `this` ? >>> > >>> > Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >>> > > It's less clear which is the best choice for JS. >>> > >>> > Cascading wants its own special form, e.g., Dave's >>> > mustache-repurposed proposal at >>> > >>> > https://blog.mozilla.org/dherman/2011/12/01/now-thats-a-nice-stache/ >>> > >>> > so one can write cascades without having to be sure the methods >>> involved >>> > follow an unchecked |this|-returning convention. >>> >>> >>> I really like this possibility. Is there any way of the monocle-mustache >>> making it into ... say, ES7? >>> >>> If so, it would seem wrong to ever return `this`. Sounds like you get >>> the best of both worlds to me! >>> >> >> Yes, monocle-mustache is very cool, especially Dave's proposed version >> here, but this: >> >> obj.{ >> prop = "val" >> }; >> >> ...has received negative feedback, because developers want colon, not >> equal, but colon is to "define" as equal is to "assign". >> >> eg. What does this do? >> >> elem.{ >> innerHTML: "<p>paragraph</p>" >> }; >> >> Most developers would naturally assume that this sets elem.innerHTML >> to "<p>paragraph</p>", but it actually results in a [[DefineOwnProperty]] >> of innerHTML with {[[Value]]: "<p>paragraph</p>" , [[Writable]]: true, >> [[Enumerable]]: true, [[Configurable]]: true}, which would blow away the >> accessor descriptor that was previously defined for elem.innerHTML (ie. the >> one that would convert "<p>paragraph</p>" to a node and insert it into the >> DOM. So the obvious choice is to use "=" instead of ":" because it >> correctly connotes the assignment behaviour—except that developers >> complained about that when we evangelized the possibility. >> >> Monocle-mustache is simply not a replacement for return this because >> chaining mutation methods is not the sole use case. Please review the use >> cases I provided earlier in the thread. >> >> There is simply too much real world evidence (widely adopted libraries >> (web) and modules (node)) in support of return-this-from-mutation-method to >> ignore, or now go back on, a base criteria for including the pattern in >> newly designed built-in object APIs. >> >> Rick >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
