carefully On Jun 20, 2:26 pm, Sidney San Martín <s...@sidneysm.com> wrote: > To an extent, I agree… but how would you write a function like jQuery.ajax, > which takes upwards of 30 optional parameters, in a more JavaScripty way? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jason Mulligan <attac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Considering the language, sending an object of args is going against > > the convention of JavaScript due to laziness. > > > On Jun 17, 12:26 pm, Nick Morgan <skilldr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 17 June 2011 16:32, Jason Mulligan <attac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I prefer sending individual parameters. It's a cross-language > > > > convention that works and is expected. > > > > I think doing stuff in one language because it's what you do in other > > > languages is a really bad idea - you should be coding with the idioms > > > of your current language. > > > > -- > > > Nick Morganhttp://skilldrick.co.uk > > > @skilldrick > > > -- > > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/jsment...@jsmentors.com/ > > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > >http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/ > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
-- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
