Re: Showing APIs to the ECMAScript world

Hmm, that's an alright point, however, if developers are copying and pasting 
code, then they probably aren't really understanding or caring about what it 

I think it'd make sense to use a sensible default, and then communicate that.

If you mean something as a boolean, it probably makes more sense to be a 
boolean, even if developers may occasionally copy and paste code from 
some examples on the web.

Also, as a user of this API, do you really want to always be explicit in setting 
whether you want to respect timezones or not? I have a small feeling that 
developers would actually use the Data attribute more-so over change the 
respecting of timezones.


On 09/05/2013, at 4:15 PM, Mounir Lamouri <> wrote:

> On 09/05/13 14:29, Micheil Smith wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> Small question: why is the "ignoreTimezone" / "respectTimezone" flag a
>> string? 
>> Why not just use a Boolean in the signature, such as:
>> Future <> add <>(Date date, optional any data, optional Boolean respectTimezones);
>> Where by, if omitted, respectTimezones defaults to False.
> The reason is that this attribute is pretty hard to understand and it
> would be pretty easy to end up copy-pasting code and not really care
> about that boolean being true or false. If it is a plain string, we hope
> that developers might have at least a hint about the usage of this
> argument. This is basically to make the method self-documented.
> Cheers,
> --
> Mounir

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 16:56:33 UTC