- From: Domenic Denicola <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 13:00:30 -0800
- To: w3ctag/design-reviews <design-reviews@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2020 21:00:42 UTC
> Although in my mind it still feels like it is useful to include it in beforematch.
Strong +1. It's better to leave hashchange for being dedicated to handling hash changes, and not force developers to structure their code like
```js
document.addEventListener("beforematch", handleBeforeMatch);
document.addEventListener("hashchange", () => {
handleHashChange();
handleBeforeMatch();
});
```
Letting "beforematch" be the one-stop-shop for this sort of handling is a much more elegant and decoupled design, instead of taking a dependency on the incidental fact that we already have an event for 1 of 3 cases.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/306#issuecomment-594165956
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2020 21:00:42 UTC