- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:54:36 -0700
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir Vukicevic" <vladimirv@gmail.com> To: "Benjamin Joffe" <canvasgame at gmail.com> Cc: <whatwg at whatwg.org> Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [whatwg] Canvas 2d methods > On 7/1/06, Benjamin Joffe <canvasgame at gmail.com> wrote: >> Each of the methods defined for the canvas 2d context return null. I >> think >> it would be very convenient if instead they would return a reference to >> the >> 2d context for that canvas. This would allow writing such code as >> ctx.fill >> ().stroke() or ctx.moveTo(0,0).lineTo(10,10). This is how many of the >> native >> string and array methods work in javaScript. > > This isn't a bad idea; the problem is that the cat's already out of > the bag here, and developers will end up writing ctx.moveTo() > ctx.lineTo() etc. for compatability. I'm a fan of "with" in this > instance: with (ctx) { moveTo(0,0); lineTo(10,10); } etc. > In prototype based languages it is almost impossible to implement 'with' effectively in the given notation. ctx.moveTo(0,0).lineTo(10,10); is more effective. In some circumstances - in times. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 1 July 2006 19:54:36 UTC