- From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:07:14 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Brandon Wallace <brandon.wallace@yahoo.com>, Jake Verbaten <raynos2@gmail.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On Jan 10, 2013, at 7:39, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Domenic Denicola > <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: >> What about just... "off"? > > Well that is the pattern some of the registration mechanism use, > including addEventListener() today. However, it requires keeping track > of all arguments passed. Or at least those that determine the "key" > for what an event listener is (currently that would be type, callback, > capture flag). > > It's already not that convenient to keep track of the callback, so > maybe instead we should use a mechanism similar to setInternal() and > friends. They return an integer you can later pass to a remove method. > > That doesn't seem quite as elegant as returning a function pointer > however as per Jake's proposal. (Returning an object here with a > method seems overkill to me.) > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > I meant that, if an object with methods were returned, the method should be named "off" as opposed to "cancel" or "stop" etc. Agreed that a function instead of an object is more elegant, however.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 13:08:00 UTC