----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Vukicevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Benjamin Joffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Canvas 2d methods
On 7/1/06, Benjamin Joffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Each of the methods defined for the canvas 2d context return null. I
think
it would be very convenient if instead they would return a reference to
the
2d context for that canvas. This would allow writing such code as
ctx.fill
().stroke() or ctx.moveTo(0,0).lineTo(10,10). This is how many of the
native
string and array methods work in javaScript.
This isn't a bad idea; the problem is that the cat's already out of
the bag here, and developers will end up writing ctx.moveTo()
ctx.lineTo() etc. for compatability. I'm a fan of "with" in this
instance: with (ctx) { moveTo(0,0); lineTo(10,10); } etc.
In prototype based languages it is almost impossible to implement 'with'
effectively in the given notation.
ctx.moveTo(0,0).lineTo(10,10);
is more effective. In some circumstances - in times.
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
