W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2013

Re: [whatwg] [Notifications] Constructor should not have side effects

From: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:41:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPJYB1guW-tx2kg-RMAci4fw9uY3kctQef0hkW_phOnC2pH0mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, olli@pettay.fi, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ... Is that even a valid use case? It seems dubious to instantiate a
> > > class named "request" and then not send a request.
> >
> > You can't go down that line of thinking because it doesn't generalize.
> > For instance why would I instantiate a class named "node" without
> > putting it into the tree?
>
> There are all kinds of reasons why you may do this. Hence, we support it.
>
> Reasoning by use case definitely generalises -- it's how we design
> everything around here. :-)
>
>
But reasoning by naming certainly doesn't. His comment was about creating a
class named request.
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 20:42:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:12 GMT