- From: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:41:06 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, olli@pettay.fi, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Elliott Sprehn wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote: > > > > > > ... Is that even a valid use case? It seems dubious to instantiate a > > > class named "request" and then not send a request. > > > > You can't go down that line of thinking because it doesn't generalize. > > For instance why would I instantiate a class named "node" without > > putting it into the tree? > > There are all kinds of reasons why you may do this. Hence, we support it. > > Reasoning by use case definitely generalises -- it's how we design > everything around here. :-) > > But reasoning by naming certainly doesn't. His comment was about creating a class named request.
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 20:42:14 UTC