Christophe Porteneuve wrote: > Hey there, > > Peter Michaux a écrit : > > It really is too bad so many people are getting burned by this > > script. > > I just can't believe you, Peter. "So many"? "Burned"?
A little hyperbole goes a long way... > We've had > barely a couple people announcing they have issues when using the loader > in very specific situations, compared to thousands, if not tens of > thousands, You really think there are "tens of thousands" of users (i.e. developers) who have tried multiple load scripts calling the scriptaculous load function? Hmmm, hoist with your own petard. > who use it everyday without a glinch, and you go "so many"? Have a serious look at the scriptaculous loader function, it is a prime example of turgid, confused programming. It contains a blatant syntax error (throw without try..catch), is fragile (as demonstrated here), uses an amazing series of nested functions with iterators that are completely unnecessary and and really shouldn't be served as the primary link in loading the other libraries. It deserves criticism. Peter's alternative function does a much better job, why not submit it with a Trac ticket? -- Fred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" 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/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
