On 18 February 2011 02:41, RobG <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 6:11 am, Jason Mulligan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Why is that called a "Module Pattern"? It's just closure? > > The original developers of this pattern were looking for uses for > closures[1], *they* didn't call it anything. I don't know when the > name "module pattern" was coined, possibly later when Douglas Crockfor > became aware of the pattern. The first reference I can find to the > module pattern on clj is in September 2007, many years after it was > originally developed. > > It's only worth naming a pattern "many years after it was originally developed" - patterns are names given to accepted good practices. Just because it didn't have a name when it was first developed doesn't mean it isn't useful for communication for it to have a name now. -- Nick Morgan http://skilldrick.co.uk @skilldrick <http://twitter.com/skilldrick>
-- 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]
