On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Scott Sauyet <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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".
>
Yeah my bad, missed an "s" ... English is not my main language but I
shouldn't make those errors anyway :-)
Thank you for the correction, it helps me with my English skills too.
--
Diego
> 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]
>
--
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]
