- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:27:11 -0800
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:06:49 -0800, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > As others have pointed out, I think this is entirely the wrong direction > to go. > > The whole point of being able to pass in an object and have a function > called on that object is to allow the page to have an object which > registers as a listener to several callbacks and reacts to all of them > appropriately. > > If you are just listening to a single callback you might as well use a > function with a closure. > > However if all callbacks use the same function name, then we've lost > all advantages of using an object with member functions since all > callbacks would go to the same member function. > > Instead we should encourage callbacks to use descriptive names for the > callback function so that it makes sense to have a observer object > which listens to multiple callbacks using separate functions. Given the many many callbacks that use handleEvent() it seems that ship has sailed. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 11:27:56 UTC