On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Nick Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > We could call it a pre-pattern ;) -- 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]
