On Feb 17, 11:03 am, FND <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That is: in order to safely get a populated object from a store you
> > must use the return value from the get call and not rely on the
> > (possible) side effect of the bag object being passed to get.
>
> I think that's a good thing, as it's more explicit - so this makes it
> easier to follow what's going on, without worrying about some magic
> happening inside a function.
That's what I ended up thinking too. It strengthens the contract at
the interface while making what you can do within the boundaries more
flexible.
> (Of course there might be a Bag.populate method to change the bag object
> in place - but I don't think that's required.)
And not desired either: Bag intentionally has no methods on it related
to persistence.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWikiDev" 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/TiddlyWikiDev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
