Diego Perini wrote:
>Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> npup wrote:
>>> I wrote a little utility to help out with checking status of objects.
>>> More specifically, checking their conformance with a "signature" that
>>> you provide along with the check.
>> [ ... ]
>> But I'm not thrilled with the API. The first thing that concerns me
>> is the static call to Acts.As.info() which significantly constrains
>> how I could choose to use it: if I want to store the results of a
>> call, I have to make a call to .info before making another call to the
>> test method. There's something wrong with that. My first thought is
>> to reverse the sense of the call, so that false means that there is no
>> mismatch and a results object details the issues found. But I can't
>> think of a good name for that function, which makes me suspect that
>> it's not as intuitive an abstraction as "ActsAs". Besides, it's just
>> so negative! :-)
>
> Just a minimal name suggestion, could "reflect" work instead of "ActsAs" ?
>
> Hope I have correctly interpreted the sense/intent the name must give :)
I think "reflects" (not "reflect" -- don't you love English where
adding an "s" makes nouns plural and verbs singular?!) has a similar
sense as "ActsAs".
I was suggesting something different, namely that the inverted sense
might be nicer to use in coding. I still don't have a better name
than "mismatches", which is fairly ugly.
But it could be used like this:
if (mismatches(spec, obj) {
return;
}
// proceed knowing that the object matches the spec
or like this:
var mismatch = mismatches(spec, obj)
if (mismatch) {
throw new Error(mismatch);
}
// proceed knowing that the object matches the spec
I'm just a bit uncomfortable with the negative sense of this.
What I didn't like about npup's original is that this was handled with
two separate calls:
if (Acts.As(spec, obj) {
// proceed knowing that the object matches the spec
} else {
throw new Error(Acts.As.info());
}
This wouldn't allow, for instance, the following:
if (Acts.As(spec1, obj1) {
if (Acts.As(spec2, obj2) {
// proceed knowing that all objects matches their specs
} else {
throw new Error(Acts.As.info());
}
} else {
throw new Error(Acts.As.info()); // fails to report accurately
}
You could of course work something out, but it strikes me as
difficult, which is why I suggested reversing the sense.
var mismatch1 = mismatches(spec1, obj1);
if (mismatches1) {
throw new Error(mismatch1);
}
var mismatch2 = mismatches(spec2, obj2);
if (mismatch2) {
throw new Error(mismatch2);
}
// proceed knowing that all objects matches their specs
I'm not at all convinced by this, but I think it's worth considering.
-- Scott
--
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]
