- From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:10:39 -0800
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, olli@pettay.fi, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that literally. - R. Niwa
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 21:11:23 UTC