The callback is doing something 'with' the resource you are waiting for. The
callback cannot be called 'without' the resource being available. The 'with'
refers to the 'named storage object' not the registration of the callback.
"with" this named storage object "do" function
Would be how I read it.
Cheers,
Keean.
On 12 January 2011 07:48, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> > Not *quite* asynchronous callbacks (that's something fairly specific
> > to languages that run on an event loop), but close enough.
> >
> > Lisp has, for example, macros like WITH-HASH-TABLE-ITERATOR, which
> > takes a hash, a name for the iterator to be produced, and then a chunk
> > of code within which the iterator is available.
> >
> > Python has its "with" keyword, used like "with file = open('foo'):
> > doStuffToTheFile(file)", which similarly creates a named resource and
> > takes a chunk of code within which the resource is available. I know
> > that other languages have similar, but off the top of my head I'm
> > having trouble thinking of them.
>
> All of these seem very similar to the 'with' operator in javascript,
> but quite different from a function which registers a asynchronous
> callback.
>
> / Jonas
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 07:52:26 UTC