On Jul 28, 3:09 pm, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2:23 pm, reddaly <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> > > Nevertheless I am interested in any incremental suggestions about
> > > function names.
>
> > My suggestion is to inspect the function object for an explicit, user-
> > defined name.
>
> I've heard this suggestion before, I didn't understand it. If you
> don't want anonymous functions, why don't you just name them? I mean
> aren't function names are exactly equal to explicit user-defined
> names?
You suggest using a form like
function myName() { ...}
instead of
var x = function () { ...}
x.firebugName = "myName"
However, this does not always work out. Consider the case where a
function returns another function.
function compose (fn1, fn2) {
// returns a function that calls fn1 with the result of fn2
return function() { return fn1( fn2.apply(null, arguments)) }
}
Here, there is no sensible way to name the composed function (other
than "composed function," which does not give any context about the
functions it comprises). Ideally, you would like to name it something
recognizable. e.g. compose(tagName, firstTag) would be named
"tagName_firstTag." The way to accomplish this best is to set a
property on the function that firebug will inspect.
Best regards,
Red
>
> jjb
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Firebug" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
