- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:10:21 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14878
Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |wycats@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> 2011-11-22 05:10:19 UTC ---
Bitmasks are not a good user-facing API for JavaScript. Anecdotally, SproutCore
1.x used bitmasks for some state management code in our data store API, and it
was one of the most confusing (and "weird") parts of that API.
Is there anything lost by simply using String literals for this purpose? As a
practitioner, I agree with Anne that constant/bitmask APIs are more annoying to
use, and don't seem to offer any obvious gain other than the emotional appeal
of cargo-culting a C best practice.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 05:10:27 UTC