> [...] Although I will use ;(function if the function is sad and squinty.
lol, now that's a good reason indeed to choose one of the other; sad
functions prefixed with ;( and others just bold & proud prefixed
with !
Like!
For me personally I try to stick with one style because If I work with
one style for some time I tend to favor that one over any other style
and have the urge to redo all previous code. It is like kerning which
I can do untill infinity before I accept it is "right"
Maybe someone can make a StyleMyCode = new Class({ }) with a random
option.
I do think this thread was helpful though.
On 17 mei, 01:00, Ryan Florence <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do the IIFE (immediately invoked function expression) when class instances
> share a variable that I don't want to simply hang from the class constructor.
>
> I also use !function these days instead of ;(function. Although I will use
> ;(function if the function is sad and squinty.
>
> So:
>
> var Foo = new Class({})
> Foo.shared = {};
>
> becomes
>
> !function (){
> var privateShared = {}
> var Foo = this.Foo = new Class({})
> Foo.publicShared = {}
>
> }.call(this)
>
> this.Foo is to assign it to the context, which is probably window, otherwise
> it's trapped and you couldn't use it outside the IIFE. var Foo at first is
> so I don't have to do this.Foo inside the IIFE if I need to assign something
> to it.
>
> When writing MooTools, I use MooTools conventions / whitespace / etc.
>
> When doing my own stuff, I do whatever I feel like. I enjoy experimenting
> with coding style and whitespace, makes you freak out less when you work on
> somebody else's code.
>
> It's silly to think your style is the "best" or even "right."
>
> On May 16, 2011, at 9:57 AM, אריה גלזר wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > My 2 cent - I regularly patch packages together into one file, and some are
> > not my code. prefixing my closures with semicolon does come with any
> > significant cost (in fact, if you want, you can do
>
> > +function(){
>
> > }.apply(this);
>
> > and then you're even saving bytes). my point is that I don't trust other
> > people's code to be properly structured.
>
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Arian Stolwijk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That is what MooTools does, however there are some other opinions about it.
>
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Philip Thompson <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > IMO, you shouldn't have to deal with prefixing the anonymous function (or
> > other statements) with a semi-colon. If you're the one writing the code,
> > you *know* what will work when you compress your own code. I know that some
> > compressors are more forgiving than others (e.g., YUI), but I believe it
> > comes down to writing code properly. You wouldn't leave a plus sign off of
> > your addition statement (for lack of a better analogy). Why not properly
> > end all your statements with semi-colons?
>
> > (function () {
> > var myVar = 'hi';
> > ...
> > })(); // Add the semi-colon here
>
> > var Pizza = {
> > isGood: function () { return true; }
> > }; // Add the semi-colon here
>
> > My $0.02. Happy coding.
>
> > ~Philip
>
> > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Rolf -nl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the quick reply. I understood about closures and keeping
> > things private, but got sort of confused where I saw usage of:
>
> > (function(){
>
> > var hello = this.hello = 'yo';
>
> > and nowhere hello was used down in the code. But I think it could be
> > there just as a standard anyway so I you would edit the code you don't
> > have to think about it and you could just use 'hello' somewhere as you
> > already defined it.
>
> > })()
>
> > about the ;function or !function etc. thanks for clearing up that
> > chars like + or ~ would also 'work' -- again, I understood from
> > reading elsewhere that people suggested the compressor would be wrong
> > and should be looked at if the extra ! or ; before the parenthese was
> > necessary to prevent errors (since trailing semi colons are not
> > required). But still I would see it being used inside files which made
> > me frown my eyebrows again.
>
> > On May 15, 8:36 pm, Arian Stolwijk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You should read about closures.
>
> > > They help to prevent putting all kind of variables public.
>
> > > so you can wrap it with in a closure, or self-invoking-function, there are
> > > several names and methods, but the basic example used in MooTools is:
>
> > > (function(){
>
> > > var private = 'yo';
>
> > > })();
>
> > > alert(private); // throws error
>
> > > But we don't want to put everything privately, but want to make it
> > > public. Fortunately we can just put something on the window object. The
> > > window object is equal to `this` in the browser:
>
> > > console.log(window == this);
>
> > > This is also true in closures:
>
> > > (function(){
>
> > > this.hello = 'yo';
>
> > > })();
>
> > > console.log(window.hello, this.hello, hello); // yo
>
> > > For better compression you can do something like this:
>
> > > (function(){
>
> > > var hello = this.hello = 'yo';
>
> > > // now we can use hello here, which is private, instead of this.hello
> > > every
> > > thime
>
> > > })();
>
> > > In 1.3.1 and in PowerTools .call(this) was used. .call and .apply work
> > > like
> > > bind, but also execute the function. So here the inner this was set to the
> > > outer this, which was still window. This supposed to fix something in some
> > > fancy environments, but didn't work in node.js after all, since this
> > > refers
> > > to something else there and not the global object.
>
> > > There are also other variants to fix nasty errors with compressing, when
> > > the
> > > last ; is forgotten, see this example, which works ok
>
> > > (function(){
>
> > > })()
> > > (function(){
> > > })()
>
> > > but when we compress:
>
> > > (function(){})()(function(){})()
>
> > > which errors.
>
> > > Putting some other char before the (function(){, like a !, ; ~, + or
> > > whatever solves this problem.
>
> > > I hope this helps you and I've given you some pointers to search further.
>
> > > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Rolf -nl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Looking at Moo's source and following the syntax and code style rules
> > > > I was (in the past) used to do it like:
>
> > > > var myClass = new Class({
> > > > });
>
> > > > then people started to wrap it and adopted:
>
> > > > (function(){
>
> > > > var myClass = new Class({
> > > > });
>
> > > > })();
>
> > > > or an alternate ending for the wrap (like in cpojer's powertools):
>
> > > > }).call(this);
>
> > > > ryan florence is dropping trailing semi-colons in his (non mootools
> > > > released) js code (which is fine I think, others can disagree) but
> > > > starting code with a semi-colon before every parenthese like:
>
> > > > ;(function(){
> > > > })();
>
> > > > and I also noticed this:
>
> > > > var myClass = this.myClass = new Class({
> > > > });
>
> > > > since when are we also adding this.myClass? What is the benefit, why
> > > > is it important?
>
> > > > Ok, what I'm trying to say is that I see sort of the use of all of
> > > > this and I understand what it does, but I don't fully 'get' the path
> > > > to follow or why I would do it one way or the other.
>
> > > > Maybe someone can enlighten us here on the list or maybe a blog post
> > > > to take away some confusion.
>
> > --
> > Arieh Glazer
> > אריה גלזר
> > 052-5348-561
> >http://www.arieh.co.il
> >http://www.link-wd.co.il
