Fwd: [dojo-contributors] [feedback wanted] Preferred Iteration forms
alex at dojotoolkit.org
Tue Apr 4 21:44:05 EDT 2006
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 7:03 am, Tom Trenka wrote:
> > But since there are a number of people that seem to want the
> > functional iteration, don't be too surprised if someone adds that
> > into the collections code (at some point in the future).
> As administrative "owner" of that code, I *might* consider pulling
> any addition like that out. If it saved even 4 to 5 lines of code on
> the part of the owner, that'd be one story. But to add something
> like that (either duplicating or including the dependency) is a bit
> ridiculous when you can do it, on your own, in one to two lines of
> code yourself.
> You might think everyone wants the functional iterator, but I'd
> submit to you the majority of the people who would use the
> Collections code over working with an array directly will prefer the
> imperative, because that's what they know--which translates directly
> to shorter dev time.
Bogus. If that was a workable argument our code would all look like C#
or Java. I, for one, thank my chosen diety that it doesn't.
> Yes, its a cool feature. But it's just as easy for you to do it in
> your app as it is for me to create the dependency.
Didn't we go through this? Just add an iteratorInstance.forEach() method
w/ the same signature as the dojo.lang.forEach() (sans iterated
object). I'm seriously cofounded why we're still having this
It's not that much code and it keeps us out of non-dynamic language
hell. Add it, please, so that we can be done with this discussion.
alex at jot.com
alex at dojotoolkit.org BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20060404/35f7de4d/attachment.sig
More information about the dojo-contributors