1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. comp.lang.javascript

  • Re: Statement-Continuation Rule

    From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.lang.javascript on Thu Feb 22 19:36:47 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.javascript

    On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:37:52 +0100, Mild Shock wrote:

    But I have my doubts.

    Show us your non-method-chained-style version, then.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mild Shock@janburse@fastmail.fm to comp.lang.javascript on Fri Feb 23 00:49:08 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.javascript

    No syntactical doubts, only semantical doubts:

    So method chaining might not always satisfied the
    same expectations about being a more "functional" approach.

    Guido von Rossum suggest to not always use method chaining:

    https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/038855.html

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro schrieb:
    On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:37:52 +0100, Mild Shock wrote:

    But I have my doubts.

    Show us your non-method-chained-style version, then.


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.lang.javascript on Fri Feb 23 01:40:54 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.javascript

    On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:49:08 +0100, Mild Shock wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro schrieb:

    On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:37:52 +0100, Mild Shock wrote:

    But I have my doubts.

    Show us your non-method-chained-style version, then.

    Guido von Rossum suggest to not always use method chaining:

    Which is not really answering my question, is it?
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John Harris@niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid to comp.lang.javascript on Fri Feb 23 11:55:13 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.javascript

    On 23/02/2024 01:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:49:08 +0100, Mild Shock wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro schrieb:

    On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:37:52 +0100, Mild Shock wrote:
    <snip>
    Guido von Rossum suggest to not always use method chaining:

    Which is not really answering my question, is it?

    In some scenarios it makes sense to allow chaining.
    For instance when building the answer to a query where the parts to be included depend on circumstances. As in x.a().b().e().g();

    In other scenarios it just makes things confusing for anyone reading the
    code, including the writer.

    In other words it depends on design judgement, something that disturbs
    people who prefer a 300 page book of rules.

    John

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2