On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:32:59PM +0200, Dominic Tarr wrote: > I agree with Tim Caswell. Lets face it, that exists exists is embarassing. > removing it from the docs (replace with a link to stat) but leaving it > in the code (with a big comment) is the right compromise. once > everyone has forgotten about it, it will be easier to remove it. > > I understand isaac's position. he doesn't want to remove exists, > because although it's a breaking change, and although we LOVE breaking > changes in node, what we really love about breaking changes is when a > breaking change is a breaking improvement. > > but this is only a cosmetic improvement. there will be no associated > performance improvement...
Consistency is a hobgoblin and all that. I'm glad that node doesn't waste time on the sort of refactoring that plagued open source a few years back; endlessly refactoring for the sake of a taxonomy that is closer to the Platonic form. I really appreciate the way decisions to alter node are made. However, that `exists` has a different signature from everything else has always felt like a burr. I'm surprised it lives on. I'm surprised there is a function that's been left in node that whenever anyone uses it, they are told not to, because checking for existence is an anti-pattern, and `stat` is better. That is a waste of community energy: having a bright shinny function that draws newbies like moths, only to have the community zap them when they use it. It it a test? -- Alan Gutierrez - http://twitter.com/bigeasy -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
