- From: Jake Verbaten <raynos2@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:38:37 -0800
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 23:39:10 UTC
using an object also allows for future scope creep. Returning a function makes the API simple and reduces complexity. However almost none of the existing host APIs are higher order functions (I can't think of a single API that returns a function) so it probably doesn't fit with the style. However returning an object with a method stop is ambigious, returning an object with a method removeEventListener is verbose. I guess an object with a cancel method would make sense. On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Jake Verbaten <raynos2@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Emphasis being on that `.on(...)` returns some kind of token that can be >> > used to remove the listener so we don't have to keep a reference to the >> > listener ourself somewhere. >> >> I think that makes a lot of sense. I like the idea of just returning a >> function reference. >> > > Returning an object with a method is a more common pattern on the > platform. It also allows adding related features in the future without > contortions (eg. Prototype's also has start(), to re-add the listener). > > -- > Glenn Maynard > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 23:39:10 UTC