Wow thanks for the interesting conversation. Whilst I can see the
reasoning behind both sides of the argument, to me it's cleaner and
more convenient to tell the bind function to return false, than it is
to create anonymous functions for it. Don't forget, a lot of the time
people will have to bind the anonymous function, which looks even more
messy. Eg:
function(){
this.doSomething();
return false;
}.bind(this);
Compared to:
this.doSomething.returnFalse(this);
Although perhaps a better design would be to allow the 3rd argument of
bind (and similar functions) to be an explicit return value. Or even
just allowing an explicit return value in function.create so people
can create their own wrapper functions (and it would only add a few
bytes of extra code).
Lewis.
On Apr 22, 11:16 pm, Sanford Whiteman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > addEvent('click',function(){return f() && false;})
> > amounts to the same thing.
>
> I know it's the same as
>
> f(); return false;
>
> but it might be more easily interpreted as wrapping the function and
> its forced-false return in one, and that's closer to what the OP was
> wondering about (the two-at-once/wrapper concept).
>
> > I still don't see the need here. "return false" is just not that big
> > of a burden.
>
> Me neither, just playing with other ways....
>
> --Sandy
