On Jan 1, 12:48 am, jemptymethod <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please consider the following template. Sure its a little verbose,
> but Uncle Bob declare comments to be failures, so I'm trying to
> obviate such failure with the identifiers $private and $public. Also
> the nested closures allow all state to be hidden with $private, and
> for code (e.g. $private.init()) to be executed within the same scope
> from which the ($public) interface is returned.
>
> Feedback appreciated; I merely intend on opening a discussion. Some
> or many may disagree with this approach. But is there anything
> outright wrong about it?
Improved code formatting, with console.log un-commented, and usage of
the module:
var Module = (function() {
var $private = (function() {
var $state = {};
var $private = {};
$private.state = function() {return $state};
$private.init = function() {
console.log('$private.init invoked');
};
return $private;
})();
return (function() {
$private.init();
$public = {};
return $public;
})();
})();
var module = Module;
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
