On Jan 15, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Diego Perini wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> #1 - function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") }();
>> #2 - (function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") }());
>> #3 - (function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") })();
>>
>> #1 is an error. #2 and #3 both work.
>>
>> If I type "foo" or if I type ("foo") they are semantically the same
>> thing. same as if I type 1 vs (1), etc.
>> The fact that "function(){}()" and "( function(){}() )" are not
>> semantically the same seems a bit backwards logically.
>>
>> Hence I prefer style #3
>>
>
> I prefer style #3 too, mostly because I believe the components (FD and
> Expression) are better grouped and separated.
Diego,
Thanks for adding the clarity between the grouping and expression.
On Jan 15, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> #1 - function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") }();
> #2 - (function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") }());
> #3 - (function(){ WScript.Echo("foo") })();
>
> #1 is an error. #2 and #3 both work.
>
> If I type "foo" or if I type ("foo") they are semantically the same
> thing. same as if I type 1 vs (1), etc.
> The fact that "function(){}()" and "( function(){}() )" are not
> semantically the same seems a bit backwards logically.
>
> Hence I prefer style #3
Michael,
Yeah that is the way I'm used to seeing this IIFE written.
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2:30 pm, Bill Heaton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am curious if anyone can give me insight why the nesting of the function
>> to be immediately invoked should be completely contained within parenthesis
>> ( // func () ); versus parenthesis + parenthesis ( // func )();
>>
>> I do not get why the parenthesis (and arguments if needed) would be better
>> placed just inside the final closing parenthesis ')'
>
>
> This sounds like something that must have been recently added in the
> latest changes to JSLint. Crockford talks about his preference for
> this convention in the Yahoo video series "Crockford on
> Javascript" (volume three I believe).
>
> It is of course a matter of style, since the grouping operator is just
> there as a visual designation that the function self-executes, but
> Crockford stated something to the effect that it makes more sense for
> the entire self-executing function (including the actual invocation)
> to be enclosed within the grouping operator, than to leave the
> invocation out.
Joe,
I just recently watched his video on 'the future' and analogy to Walt Disney's
plans for an EPCOT city; I enjoyed the video, and will be watching more. I do
agree that it mostly just seems a preference. I had hoped their may be a
checkbox in JSLint.com to not use his preference on this one when validating
syntax with his browser tool.
Thanks all,
-Bill Heaton
@pixelhandler
--
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]
