(Sorry for top-posting; I'm dealing with a sub-par mail client due to ongoing mail server issues).
Tab: You've handsomely made the point to replace the existing optional boolean with a dictionary (which is what we do for the Blob constructor). I suppose I thought the dictionary was overkill for what Adrian Bateman posited as only a small change, but ... I'm swayed by the future-proofing argument (if not the "booleans are hard to memorize" argument -- I'm with Glenn on that one). -- A* ----- Original Message ----- > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Glenn Maynard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Mike Taylor <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Yes, synthetic keypress have multiple problems--which is why we > >> all use > >> libraries to not have to author them by hand. > >> > >> Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that > >> window.URL.createObjectURL(file, true) is more opaque (and for me, > >> harder to > >> remember) than: > >> > >> window.URL.createObjectURL(file, {oneTimeOnly: true}) > >> > >> or something magical like > >> window.URL.createObjectURL(file).oneTimeOnly() > > > > > > Again, this argument is fine, but has nothing to do with booleans. > > The > > same argument could be made for URL.createObjectURL(file, > > {expireInSeconds: > > 1000}) vs. URL.createObjectURL(file, 1000), or any other optional > > parameter. > > ...yes? It can be. I made the general argument above - if an > optional argument has *no relation* to expected future optional > arguments, then it shouldn't be an optional argument at all, it > should > be a keyword argument instead (implemented in JS via a dictionary > object arg). Otherwise authors will end up being forced to specify > the "optional" argument with a dummy value just because they actually > want to specify a later optional argument. > > You should only create multiple optional arguments when specifying a > later one *implies* that the earlier ones should be specified as > well. > You shouldn't create a *single* optional argument if you expect that > it won't have such a relationship with things made in the future. > > ~TJ >
