W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:51:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4EB9B28A.9030207@helsinki.fi>
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
CC: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On 11/09/2011 12:43 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
>> On 11/08/2011 11:59 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
>>> Its useful in *some* cases, but the vast majority of the cases,
>>> developers just want to pass a function, not an object. I say make all
>>> new APIs take a function only, and let developers use ES5
>>> Function.prototype.bind() when they want to specify a method. That's a
>>> lot easier than having to remember whether the appropriate property name
>>> is handleMutations, transactionStarted, or sample.
>> If you just want to pass function, you can. But since implementations need to support useful { foobar: function() {}} syntax anyway, why not be consistent and support it always.
> The problem is 'foobar' is not consistently defined as one name, or a set of names whose parts can be derived from an obvious set of rules.
>> Also, IMO, { foobar: function() {} } is significantly easier to understand than some prototype hackery.
> What prototype hackery?
>    (function (e) {...}).bind(o)
> involves no prototype hackery.

Ok, no prototype hackery. I misunderstood David's example.

But I still don't understand why to make platform less consistent by
not supporting { callback: function() {}} syntax everywhere.
Web author doesn't need to use it, but can use it.

=FunctionOnly issue has been discussed earlier, and for example
during TPAC =FunctionOnly was removed from IndexedDB callbacks.
Similarly it has been removed lately from some other specs.

> /be
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 22:52:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC