W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2011

[whatwg] Feedback on UndoManager spec

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:31:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8H-tM8S6k_yDRCTiMDEi_wH8QJk_=QbW5V553wAfHT8g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg at aryeh.name> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg at aryeh.name> wrote:
>>> It's a few extra characters. ?I really think the increase in clarity
>>> is worth it. ?Boolean parameters are much more confusing, and should
>>> be avoided wherever possible.
>> +1. I'm also OK with the argument if it's a string.
> Jonas?

I'm ok with the string argument too. But I'm also fine with keeping it
a boolean. I don't really see the risk that people will use the wrong
interpretation of the boolean and that that wrong impression would
spread through copy-past as being a very real risk.

I agree boolean arguments can be a pain. But they are more of a pain
on the caller side than on the callee side.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 13:31:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:37 UTC