[whatwg] [Notifications] Constructor should not have side effects
esprehn at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 12:41:06 PST 2013
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at apple.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ... Is that even a valid use case? It seems dubious to instantiate a
> > > class named "request" and then not send a request.
> > You can't go down that line of thinking because it doesn't generalize.
> > For instance why would I instantiate a class named "node" without
> > putting it into the tree?
> There are all kinds of reasons why you may do this. Hence, we support it.
> Reasoning by use case definitely generalises -- it's how we design
> everything around here. :-)
But reasoning by naming certainly doesn't. His comment was about creating a
class named request.
More information about the whatwg