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>
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: 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
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

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