Why not steal the term from grammar and call it the "subject"?
On May 4, 9:38 pm, "Michael Geary" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't find this feature all that useful myself, since my callback
> functions tend to be a mix of jQuery/DOM, setTimeout, Google Maps/Earth, and
> other asynchronous APIs. If I can only bind an object to a callback in one
> of those types of APIs and not the others - or if they each sprout
> independent ways of doing it - I may as well just use a closure so I have
> one way to handle them all.
>
> But I've seen that a lot of people do like this capability, so I certainly
> don't object to it, unless of course it slows down my own code.
>
> My one request: please do not call it "scope"! Not in the code, not in the
> comments, and not in the docs.
>
> JavaScript has something called scope, and you create it by nesting
> functions lexically (or using the "with" statement). Setting the "this"
> value for an event or other callback isn't related in the slightest to
> scope.
>
> If you need a name for the concept, you could describe it as "binding an
> object to the event handler" or - probably better - "calling the event
> handler as a method of an object". I don't know of a short and sweet word
> for it, but "scope" is already taken. :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Mike
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" 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/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
