Re: Statement-Continuation Rule

From	John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.javascript
Subject	Re: Statement-Continuation Rule
Date	2024-02-23 11:55 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ura132$gs2i$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<uq1bhn$1lp15$4@dont-email.me> <ur7860$f3dd$1@solani.org> <ur87of$1rr1$1@dont-email.me> <ur8mhl$ftfd$1@solani.org> <ur8t35$6ap6$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 23/02/2024 01:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:49:08 +0100, Mild Shock wrote:
> 
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro schrieb:
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:37:52 +0100, Mild Shock wrote:
   <snip>
>> Guido von Rossum suggest to not always use method chaining:
> 
> Which is not really answering my question, is it?

In some scenarios it makes sense to allow chaining.
For instance when building the answer to a query where the parts to be 
included depend on circumstances. As in x.a().b().e().g();

In other scenarios it just makes things confusing for anyone reading the 
code, including the writer.

In other words it depends on design judgement, something that disturbs 
people who prefer a 300 page book of rules.

   John

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Statement-Continuation Rule Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-22 11:37 +0100
  Re: Statement-Continuation Rule Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-22 19:36 +0000
    Re: Statement-Continuation Rule Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-23 00:49 +0100
      Re: Statement-Continuation Rule Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-23 01:40 +0000
        Re: Statement-Continuation Rule John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2024-02-23 11:55 +0000

csiph-web