- From: Olivier Thereaux <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:30:02 -0700
- To: WebAudio/web-audio-api <web-audio-api@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/152/24244554@github.com>
> [Original comment](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17334#2) by Olivier Thereaux on W3C Bugzilla. Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:34:01 GMT Mailing-list discussion on this topic between Ray Bellis, Chris Rogers, Marcus Geelnard and myself: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012AprJun/thread.html#msg856 Marcus has a pretty good summary, and raises something interesting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012AprJun/0865.html « Once you understand what the function does, the name makes sense. However, the name alone does not make it easy to understand what it does. I think that the confusion (at least for me) is that "setTargetValue" is very similar to "setValue", and I fear that many will have them mixed up. Generally speaking, the "set" term indicates a zero-duration operation. I'd much rather see that methods that cause gradual changes use a consistent naming convention, excluding the term "set". I think that a more appropriate name could be "approachValueAtTime" or "startApproachingValueAtTime". Similarly the name "setValueCurveAtTime" would do better without "set". Any suggestions? (I'm out of ideas right now) » --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/152#issuecomment-24244554
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:30:57 UTC