Dynamic Require API - Invocation Arguments

[Kris Kowal]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM, khs4473 <khs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - Whether the module identifiers should be specified in a variadic
> list or an array:

A.) LOAD("a", "b", "c", function(...) { ... });
B.) LOAD(["a", "b", "c"], function(...) { ... });

Current show of hands. Please copy and update this block in responses.

A.)
B.) Kris Kowal +1, Christoph Dorn +1

Christoph Dorn on B: "This seems cleaner and easier to scan and lends
itself better to dynamic generation."

Kris Kowal

[Mikeal Rogers]

A.)
B.) Kris Kowal +1, Christoph Dorn +1, Mikeal Rogers +1

[James Burke]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Kris Kowal <kris....@cixar.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM, khs4473 <khs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> - Whether the module identifiers should be specified in a variadic
>> list or an array:
>
> A.) LOAD("a", "b", "c", function(...) { ... });
> B.) LOAD(["a", "b", "c"], function(...) { ... });

B.) +1 James Burke

Not adding the names, because I already started typing one message
before another came in with someone else's response in another thread,
so probably best to just indicate your preference and tabulate later.

James

[Kris Kowal]

Merging hands.

A.)
B.) Kris Kowal, Christoph Dorn, Mikeal Rogers, James Burke

[khs4473]

A)

Reasoning: variadic list benefits newbies at minimal cost to advanced
users.

[Kris Kowal]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:55 PM, khs4473 <khs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A)
> Reasoning:  variadic list benefits newbies at minimal cost to advanced
> users.

A.) Kevin H Smith

[Tom Robinson]

What about a third option: the first argument could be an array, or a string if you want to load a single module.

C) LOAD(<String,Array> ids, function(...) { ... });

[Kris Kowal]

+1 for single-module shorthand.

A.) LOAD("a", "b", "c", function(...) { ... });
B.) LOAD(["a", "b", "c"], function(...) { ... });

C.) LOAD("a", function (a) { ... });

Hands:

A.) Kevin H Smith
B.) Kris Kowal, Christoph Dorn, Mikeal Rogers, James Burke

B+C.) Tom Robinson, Kris Kowal

[Irakli Gozalishvili]

+1 B+C

Regards
--
Irakli Gozalishvili
Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/
Address: 29 Rue Saint-Georges, 75009 Paris, France

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CommonJS" group.
To post to this group, send email to comm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to commonjs+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/commonjs?hl=en.

[Hannes Wallnoefer]

A.) LOAD("a", "b", "c", function(...) { ... });
B.) LOAD(["a", "b", "c"], function(...) { ... });
C.) LOAD("a", function (a) { ... });

Hands:

A.) Kevin H Smith
B.) Kris Kowal, Christoph Dorn, Mikeal Rogers, James Burke

B+C.) Tom Robinson, Kris Kowal, Irakli Gozalishvili, Hannes Wallnoefer

2011/1/27 Irakli Gozalishvili <rfo...@gmail.com>:

[johnjbarton]

On Jan 27, 6:12 am, Hannes Wallnoefer <hann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A.) LOAD("a", "b", "c", function(...) { ... });
> B.) LOAD(["a", "b", "c"], function(...) { ... });
> C.) LOAD("a", function (a) { ... });
>
> Hands:
>
> A.) Kevin H Smith

> B.) Kris Kowal, Christoph Dorn, Mikeal Rogers, James Burke, John J. Barton

+1

[khs4473]

I (khs) would accept B+C as an alternative to A.

[Kris Kowal]

Update:

A.) LOAD("a", "b", "c", function(...) { ... });
B.) LOAD(["a", "b", "c"], function(...) { ... });
C.) LOAD("a", function (a) { ... });

Hands:

A.) Kevin H Smith
B.) Kris Kowal, Christoph Dorn, Mikeal Rogers, James Burke, John J Barton

B+C.) Tom Robinson, Kris Kowal, Irakli Gozalishvili, Hannes

Wallnoefer, Kevin H Smith

[Christoph Dorn]

Going with B or B+C.

Update:

Hands:

Wallnoefer, Kevin H Smith, Christoph Dorn

[James Burke]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Tom Robinson <tlrob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about a third option: the first argument could be an array, or a string if you want to load a single module.
>
> C) LOAD(<String,Array> ids, function(...) { ... });

I prefer that the API args look similar to any module declaration,
like the define/module.declare variants that allow specifying
dependencies as an array. I like the mental model of "dependencies are
always in an array", which allows for easier human reading of code,
and gives the complete module API (definition and dynamic require)
more consistency.

So I'm still in B).

James

[Nathan Rajlich]

All 3 versions could be easily supported by just a couple lines of code...

    function(modulesArray, callback) {

      if (!Array.isArray(modulesArray)) {

        callback = arguments[arguments.length-1];

        modulesArray = slice.call(arguments, 0, arguments.length-1);

      }

      // The rest of the module initialization...

    }

No?

[Florian Traverse]

Again, my syntax should be a

C) REQUIRED_DEP("a").REQUIRED_DEP("b").EVENTUAL_ALIAS("foo").REQUIRED_DEP("b").LOAD(function(...){...})

2011/1/27 Nathan Rajlich <nat...@tootallnate.net>

[khs4473]

> No?

That's right - in fact, that's what I've got FlyScript doing.


On Jan 27, 1:28 pm, Nathan Rajlich <nat...@tootallnate.net> wrote:
> All 3 versions *could* be easily supported by just a couple lines of code...

> > commonjs+u...@googlegroups.com<commonjs%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om>
> > .