On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> Yes, I understand all about rapidly evolving code,
> but I'd be happy with enough documentation that magicians (not even
> necessarily mere mortals) that haven't memorized the codebase might get an
> idea what is possible already :-). Can
is public",
calculateBar: calculateBar
};
})());
exportJs("shindig.some.emptyNamespace", {});
shindig.some.emptyNamespace.xyz = "ABC";
--Jesse
>-Original Message-
>From: John Hjelmstad [mailto:fa...@google.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011
> shindig.namespace("shindig.util", (function() {
>var privateFunction = function() {
>console.log("calculateBar called");
>};
>
>var calculateBar = function() {
> privateFunction();
>};
>
>return {
>publicData: "this is public&q
> shindig.namespace("shindig.util", (function() {
>var privateFunction = function() {
>console.log("calculateBar called");
>};
>
>var calculateBar = function() {
> privateFunction();
>};
>
>return {
>publicData: "this is public&q
----
>From: Michael Hermanto [mailto:mherma...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 6:15 PM
>To: dev@shindig.apache.org
>Subject: Re: javascript readability..
>
>What didn't work for me with --
> shindig.foo = function() {
> return { 'bar': ... };
>
;
> > > function(){
> > > FooClass.prototype.method = function() { }
> > > FooClass.prototype.method2 = function() { }
> > > }();
> > >
> > > to get a local scope.
> > >
> > > I think this makes it easier to audit w
{ }
> > FooClass.prototype.method2 = function() { }
> > }();
> >
> > to get a local scope.
> >
> > I think this makes it easier to audit what must be included in an export.
> > And when you come up for air soon, maybe we can talk about AMD
or air soon, maybe we can talk about AMD format and
> what that brings to the table. :)
>
>
>
> From: John Hjelmstad
> To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
> Date: 07/26/2011 04:43 PM
> Subject:Re: javascript readability..
>
>
>
> I still prefer statu
talk about AMD format and
what that brings to the table. :)
From: John Hjelmstad
To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
Date: 07/26/2011 04:43 PM
Subject:Re: javascript readability..
I still prefer status quo, as it reads more like a proper class to me,
while
being less verbose and
to read.
>
> -Ryan
>
> Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com
> Phone: 978-899-3041
> developerWorks Profile
>
>
>
> From: Dan Dumont/Westford/IBM@Lotus
> To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
> Date: 07/26/2011 09:00 AM
> Subject:Re: javascript readability
+1 As well, I think its easier to read.
-Ryan
Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com
Phone: 978-899-3041
developerWorks Profile
From: Dan Dumont/Westford/IBM@Lotus
To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
Date: 07/26/2011 09:00 AM
Subject:Re: javascript readability..
+1
From: Paul Lindner
To
+1
From: Paul Lindner
To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
Date: 07/26/2011 02:51 AM
Subject:javascript readability..
Hi,
I'm curious to know what people think about some of the idioms in the JS
code you find in shindig. There's an awful lot of stuff like this:
s
In a parallel project with almost all the UI coded in JS we use fully
qualified names in preference to nesting. I think it has evolved that
way partially as an attempt to make it easier for the casual reader
and newcomer to get in the code. It certainly makes it easier to get
the context of a frag
Hi,
I'm curious to know what people think about some of the idioms in the JS
code you find in shindig. There's an awful lot of stuff like this:
shindig.foo = function(){
//...
var myFunction = function() {
}
return {'foo': myFunction,
'bar': function() {
re
14 matches
Mail list logo
