- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:39:00 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- 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 2:44 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?
/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 00:40:02 UTC