incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Mueller <pmue...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Orientation Interface
Date Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:49:19 GMT
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 19:30, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I prefer naming more like this :
> CB.setSupportedOrientations(0,180);
> This provides more indication to the developer that they are setting all of
> them, where supportOrientation( ) might imply that you are simply adding a
> value to the list.
> Again, it's semantics.
>

If "CB" is to become the object we namespace off of, then I think we
probably want to reserve the next "field" to be a subcategory, as it were.
 If we had a function name CB.setSupportedOrientations(),  then we're
opening the "top level" of CB as a dumping ground for all sorts of functions
people think should be "global-ish".  I'd prefer to limit the # of
global-ish functions under CB directly.

CB.orientation might make sense, if it didn't overlap with accelerometer et
al goop.  Which I guess it does.  Maybe "rotation"?  "displayRotation"?
 CB.rotation.allow(0,180)?  We want a "getter" as well, right?  I'm partial
to jquery-styled same-name for getter and setter.  CB.rotation.allow()
returns the current values, CB.rotation.allow(something) sets it.
 Presumably the getter should return the same sort of value as the setter
takes as a parameter, which means varargs aren't a good fit, but an array
is.

-- 
Patrick Mueller
http://muellerware.org

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message