- From: Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:33:59 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mike Taylor <miket@opera.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
(Sorry for top-posting; I'm dealing with a sub-par mail client due to ongoing mail server issues).
Tab:
You've handsomely made the point to replace the existing optional boolean with a dictionary (which is what we do for the Blob constructor). I suppose I thought the dictionary was overkill for what Adrian Bateman posited as only a small change, but ... I'm swayed by the future-proofing argument (if not the "booleans are hard to memorize" argument -- I'm with Glenn on that one).
-- A*
----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Mike Taylor <miket@opera.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, synthetic keypress have multiple problems--which is why we
> >> all use
> >> libraries to not have to author them by hand.
> >>
> >> Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that
> >> window.URL.createObjectURL(file, true) is more opaque (and for me,
> >> harder to
> >> remember) than:
> >>
> >> window.URL.createObjectURL(file, {oneTimeOnly: true})
> >>
> >> or something magical like
> >> window.URL.createObjectURL(file).oneTimeOnly()
> >
> >
> > Again, this argument is fine, but has nothing to do with booleans.
> > The
> > same argument could be made for URL.createObjectURL(file,
> > {expireInSeconds:
> > 1000}) vs. URL.createObjectURL(file, 1000), or any other optional
> > parameter.
>
> ...yes? It can be. I made the general argument above - if an
> optional argument has *no relation* to expected future optional
> arguments, then it shouldn't be an optional argument at all, it
> should
> be a keyword argument instead (implemented in JS via a dictionary
> object arg). Otherwise authors will end up being forced to specify
> the "optional" argument with a dummy value just because they actually
> want to specify a later optional argument.
>
> You should only create multiple optional arguments when specifying a
> later one *implies* that the earlier ones should be specified as
> well.
> You shouldn't create a *single* optional argument if you expect that
> it won't have such a relationship with things made in the future.
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 17:34:44 UTC