Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #17960
| Path | csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset="UTF-8" |
| Message-ID | <2329900.uRMUlLskrn@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
| Reply-To | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de> |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Date | Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:14:10 +0100 |
| User-Agent | KNode/4.4.11 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8Bit |
| X-Face | %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&.<b';Md8`dH6iqhT)6C^.Px|[=M@7=Ik[_w<%n1Up"LPQNu2m8|L!/3iby{-]A+#YE}Kl{Cw$\U!kD%K}\2jz"QQP6Uqr],./"?;=4v |
| Face | iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAGFBMVEXTxa4RFk5dUWANED8PFEfy7+MGBiW+n3ZNF/QuAAACaElEQVQ4jVXUwVOcMBQG8Dc7Rc4PUntdWV2uxjDpGaGeozOp1woar4jd5t/v9wLstMwsA/ntlxdCAgUc1hjTc9/JCZfGoo3wG3HdmdAWrIJRHe7GM/TmpY5VFefuVcAkkPbLIaN8rmPmjloyZxgyR3GuJ4K0AGtJ2htz8o7yqikm759fldQXaMpbDzjKAG+8v+AugVTOPO5DOjLvGtUYQwh0CPjnVMyGd+8/GfUB5nLKJDD2aLDh5HYyMDJGDwQIo2ZmZcKbowNmAdB/AzyFhrmF2MHRb0QJJfaAnwGB6orZhoykLzJtGwF/xpYxI1dswomiUj3gTuAIqCn/4C7cULwGNBtwMTk3Y4LfKB5YUaOKBKYtpplm7u0vip8tU1NWWyI/7XdcSuIDoMt6rVHMWT0DbjHPGqDqZVSa6zleLcUTcIKLoMv3ueJluALtAo9B302zPPlrtiVScRdCjXvVh3e3JpYa/jjkuC9N+LrBMlz/eAN4eQijX2EdLo6c5tGGHwLyHFtXk89dDGHwCVhG9T0S/j55AhRZgkMCmUQXJ49TnS1wnQDvw0eAh9ICeMmEFbCnPMFzjAvsWoEWEFdYEx+S0MoUZ1gT1wId8+AF3Bl2OoEu906AUHx5VLw/gXYg/x84loOah/2UYNrgiwSwGO7RfUzVBbx/kgpckumGOi6QirtD6gkLTitbnxNol47S2jVc2vsN5kPqaAHT8uUdAJM4v/DanjYOwmUjWznGfwB7sGtAtor5BgofDuzaRj4kSQAqDakTsKORa3Q3xKi3gE1fhl71KRMqrdZ2AWNNg/YOhQyrVBnb+i+nEg4bsDA+egAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== |
| Subject | Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| References | <kc4uud$fam$1@speranza.aioe.org> <1512443.gQHv90F1im@PointedEars.de> <cff125fd-2f6a-4432-aace-ab265b857a3a@4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> |
| Followup-To | comp.lang.javascript |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Lines | 36 |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | 05 Jan 2013 18:14:11 CET |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | dfe6a4cb.newsspool3.arcor-online.net |
| X-Trace | DXC=<iIbRa@_dkc^Y=RbYBPl4`McF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOko;k`8g]<bOgDZm8W4\YJNlb@mF9jNikde3>YBYU3JEom=>H@K0hUI<g |
| X-Complaints-To | usenet-abuse@arcor.de |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17960 |
Followups directed to: comp.lang.javascript
Show key headers only | View raw
David Mark wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> [You] should not simply return in the second branch in Version 2, because >> calls will fail then; you should return a reference to a Function >> instance with an empty function body. > > Disagree with that. Then the calling code would have no way of knowing > whether the function does anything useful. (For brevity, I am using “function” instead of “referred Function instance” from here.) That is not so. With an empty function body the returned function can be called *and* a called function returns “undefined” if it cannot do anything useful. That would be different from it returning “null”, *and* an advantage over returning a non-callable value from the function-constructor. My point is that the latter should return a function here as the rest of the code hinges on the callability of the returned value. And if I am not very much mistaken, this is the pattern that you are employing in My Library, too. > It's a variation of the "unbreakable chain" pattern seen in jQuery: > > A().B().C().D()... Which is why *chaining* *can be* error-prone. Non sequitur. PointedEars -- > If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices" > in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right... Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field. -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-03 22:58 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 00:41 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 09:15 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2013-01-04 11:26 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 14:29 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2013-01-04 14:56 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 16:52 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 09:19 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2013-01-04 11:25 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-04 15:31 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2013-01-05 08:37 -0800
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-05 18:14 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2013-01-05 10:51 -0800
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-05 20:46 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2013-01-05 17:12 -0800
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 17:43 -0800
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-07 03:58 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 19:23 -0800
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-07 05:19 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 22:30 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 02:35 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 22:45 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-07 04:36 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 23:06 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-08 12:35 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 08:34 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2013-01-05 09:13 -0800
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 11:09 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 12:56 -0800
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 22:53 +0100
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Luc Yen <luc@goal.tw> - 2013-01-05 12:54 -0800
Re: Two versions of code - advantages and differences Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 21:38 +0100
csiph-web