Re: Better event listeners

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Glenn Maynard <> wrote:
> I think this proposal needs more consideration.  It's a simple, consistent
> overload of an existing API, instead of a new API.  I've been told that it's
> "confusing", but not how or why.  It seems simple and obvious to me, so I
> don't know how to address this.  It seems much simpler than having two
> distinct event listener APIs.  It doesn't give a nice two-letter function
> name, but that's not a reason to have two APIs (at most it simply means
> making an alias).

Overloading an existing API to make it work completely different
simply does not seem like a good strategy. We should just map it to
the same underlying concepts.


Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 13:58:55 UTC