Gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding. > Deprecating a useful API without replacing it by something at least as > good is not a good practice imho.
We do need that separate thread. (There was more to this paragraph, but the first sentence kinda rendered the rest of it OT!!) -- T.J. On Mar 15, 5:37 pm, Tobie Langel <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry T.J. if my last comment came across as agressive. > > Just to clarify: > > > You may think that it doesn't, but that's an opinion, not received > > wisdom from on high. If you want to keep supporting DOM0 handlers > > with it, fine, say that. > > Deprecating a useful API without replacing it by something at least as > good is not a good practice imho. I'd love to have right-currying, but > as you noticed (hence your bindWithGap suggestion), it leads to > complex and unexpected behaviour in a language that supports passing a > variable number of arguments to a function. > > > Where, exactly, is the partial application that I suggested? It's not > > in bind(), it's not in curry()... It's not a big thing, and I > > wouldn't do it barring replacing bindAsEventListener with something > > more generalized, but take a sec to at least read a suggestion before > > slamming it, eh? > > I was answering Robert's suggestion of removing partial application > from Function#bind, not your bindWithGap proposal. :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
