For what is worth it , I don't believe "everyone does it like that" has
ever been a valid argument. Maybe everyone simply copied a pattern from
jQuery without even thinking if it was needed or it was the best.
Br
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nathan Wall
> <nathan.w...@live.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nathan.w...@live.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>> > Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:03:57 -0800
>> > From: bren...@mozilla.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'bren...@mozilla.org');>
>>
>> > Subject: Re: (Map|Set|WeakMap)#set() returns `this` ?
>> >
>> > Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> > > It's less clear which is the best choice for JS.
>> >
>> > Cascading wants its own special form, e.g., Dave's
>> > mustache-repurposed proposal at
>> >
>> > https://blog.mozilla.org/dherman/2011/12/01/now-thats-a-nice-stache/
>> >
>> > so one can write cascades without having to be sure the methods
>> involved
>> > follow an unchecked |this|-returning convention.
>>
>>
>> I really like this possibility. Is there any way of the monocle-mustache
>> making it into ... say, ES7?
>>
>> If so, it would seem wrong to ever return `this`. Sounds like you get
>> the best of both worlds to me!
>>
>
> Yes, monocle-mustache is very cool, especially Dave's proposed version
> here, but this:
>
> obj.{
> prop = "val"
> };
>
> ...has received negative feedback, because developers want colon, not
> equal, but colon is to "define" as equal is to "assign".
>
> eg. What does this do?
>
> elem.{
> innerHTML: "<p>paragraph</p>"
> };
>
> Most developers would naturally assume that this sets elem.innerHTML
> to "<p>paragraph</p>", but it actually results in a [[DefineOwnProperty]]
> of innerHTML with {[[Value]]: "<p>paragraph</p>" , [[Writable]]: true,
> [[Enumerable]]: true, [[Configurable]]: true}, which would blow away the
> accessor descriptor that was previously defined for elem.innerHTML (ie. the
> one that would convert "<p>paragraph</p>" to a node and insert it into the
> DOM. So the obvious choice is to use "=" instead of ":" because it
> correctly connotes the assignment behaviour—except that developers
> complained about that when we evangelized the possibility.
>
> Monocle-mustache is simply not a replacement for return this because
> chaining mutation methods is not the sole use case. Please review the use
> cases I provided earlier in the thread.
>
> There is simply too much real world evidence (widely adopted libraries
> (web) and modules (node)) in support of return-this-from-mutation-method to
> ignore, or now go back on, a base criteria for including the pattern in
> newly designed built-in object APIs.
>
> Rick
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
