On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Even for asynchronous callbacks? Can you give any examples? / JonasReceived on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 00:40:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:15 UTC