ryanve
commented
12 years ago Ok so after thinking about this for a bit I decided to use a new method name wave for the vertical tests rather than having sub objects. It's way easier to type and it's easy to understand if you imagine a big wave at the beach (we gotta have some fun too ;). So here's what we have:
Response.band(min, max) tests viewport width ranges. @since 0.1.1
Response.wave(min, max) tests viewport height ranges. @since 0.2.9
Response.device.band(min, max) tests device-width ranges. @since 0.2.9
Response.device.wave(min, max) tests device-height ranges. @since 0.2.9
Response.dpr(min, max) tests device-pixel-ratio ranges. @since 0.2.0
In the upcoming version 0.2.9 I'm considering introducing some new methods. Currently we have
Response.band(min, max)for testing whether the width of the viewport is in a min/max breakpoint range. I want to name the methods in a way that makes them easy to understand, keeps them in line with existing methods, and keeps them as concise as possible.Proposed new methods
Response.band.vertical(min, max)as a height-based version ofResponse.bandResponse.device.band(min, max)as a device-width based version ofResponse.bandResponse.device.band.vertical(min, max)as a device-height based version ofResponse.bandThey'd add very little overhead so, and seem like worthwhile additions, right? As for the names, I think the use of
.heightshould be avoided as to avoid confusing it with the native property or with jQuery's.height()method..verticaland.deviceboth seem pretty understandable (right?) but it also starts to get a bit long. It'd save some bytes if we just use.vas shown below.Naming scheme 2
Response.band.v(min, max)as a height-based version ofResponse.bandResponse.device.band(min, max)as a device-width based version ofResponse.bandResponse.device.band.v(min, max)as a device-height based version ofResponse.bandSo what's better?
.vertical(longer, more semantic) OR.v(shorter, less semantic) OR something different entirely?