Open drernie opened 9 years ago
curious: why should it be a lambda? what would that accomplish?
my hesitation with using call
is that in javascript call
is something you do to a function to execute it. you can literally use (function() {}).call()
to execute a function.
I chose get
because it is an accessor. It's the accessor for the plain javascript object that the World
wraps
Perhaps I'm confused. Could we use the term 'value' or 'contents' then?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 6, 2015, at 20:51, Daniel Ma notifications@github.com wrote:
curious: why should it be a lambda? what would that accomplish?
my hesitation with using call is that in javascript call is something you do to a function to execute it. you can literally use (function() {}).call() to execute a function.
I chose get because it is an accessor. It's the accessor for the plain javascript object that the World wraps
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
ah, yes. value
seems good to me
Sorry to be nit-picky, but I have 'get' hard-wired in my brain to be a scoped accessor. :-/
Conceptually, I think of what you are using 'get' for actually represents call-ing the object to get its value. If this was ruby, I'd want them to be actual lambdas; but I'm not sure that's a good idea in CoffeeScript.
Is that reasonable?