- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:50:47 -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 11:48 PM, 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.
Also, remember that it'll probably be quite common to simply pass in a
function rather than a lamba-like expression, so something like:
getNamedStorage("email", markallread);
In this case 'with' seems extra out of place.
/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 07:59:07 UTC