- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:44:31 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, robert@ocallahan.org, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote: >> would: >> withNamedStorage('x', function(store) {...}); >> make more sense from a naming point of view? > > I have a different association for 'with', especially in context of > JavaScript, so I prefer 'get'. But others feel free to express an > opinion. In the context of other languages with similar constructs (request a resource which is available within the body of the construct), the "with[resource]" naming scheme is pretty common and well-known. I personally like it. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 22:45:23 UTC