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

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

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:10:39 -0800
Message-id: <FB9952E2-AB1D-464C-9F37-BEDF3E31D017@apple.com>
To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, olli@pettay.fi, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. 

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that literally.

- R. Niwa
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 21:11:23 GMT

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