- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:02:19 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, robert@ocallahan.org, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
>>>> would:
>>>> withNamedStorage('x', function(store) {...});
>>>> make more sense from a naming point of view?
>>>
>>> I have a different association for 'with', especially in context of
>>> JavaScript, so I prefer 'get'. But others feel free to express an
>>> opinion.
>>
>> In the context of other languages with similar constructs (request a
>> resource which is available within the body of the construct), the
>> "with[resource]" naming scheme is pretty common and well-known. I
>> personally like it.
>
> Even for asynchronous callbacks? Can you give any examples?
Not *quite* asynchronous callbacks (that's something fairly specific
to languages that run on an event loop), but close enough.
Lisp has, for example, macros like WITH-HASH-TABLE-ITERATOR, which
takes a hash, a name for the iterator to be produced, and then a chunk
of code within which the iterator is available.
Python has its "with" keyword, used like "with file = open('foo'):
doStuffToTheFile(file)", which similarly creates a named resource and
takes a chunk of code within which the resource is available. I know
that other languages have similar, but off the top of my head I'm
having trouble thinking of them.
~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 02:03:13 UTC