On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote: >> would: >> withNamedStorage('x', function(store) {...}); >> make more sense from a naming point of view? > > I have a different association for 'with', especially in context of > JavaScript, so I prefer 'get'. But others feel free to express an > opinion.
In the context of other languages with similar constructs (request a resource which is available within the body of the construct), the "with[resource]" naming scheme is pretty common and well-known. I personally like it. ~TJ
