Talk:Security tips: Difference between revisions
From GreaseSpot Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
voted -1 |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: -1. The fact that Greasemonkey wraps scripts in an anonymous function is an irrelevant arcanum. <code>return</code> outside a function, even though it eventually ends up inside a function, is unclear. --[[User:Ldrhcp|Ldrhcp]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT) | : -1. The fact that Greasemonkey wraps scripts in an anonymous function is an irrelevant arcanum. <code>return</code> outside a function, even though it eventually ends up inside a function, is unclear. --[[User:Ldrhcp|Ldrhcp]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
: +-0. I made that change (the one that was undone in the linked revision). While I think that bailing early is good and needless nesting is bad, I also think perhaps the nesting way is more clear, as an example. It also fits better with the fact that you might well have additional "else if" branches. We ''could'' give two examples, but that'd probably hurt more than it'd help. --[[User:81.225.78.42|81.225.78.42]] 07:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 11:27, 20 March 2007
I propose un-doing this revision. GreaseMonkey scripts always have a wrapper function. See greasemonkey.js line 250. Arantius 15:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- -1. The fact that Greasemonkey wraps scripts in an anonymous function is an irrelevant arcanum.
returnoutside a function, even though it eventually ends up inside a function, is unclear. --Ldrhcp 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- +-0. I made that change (the one that was undone in the linked revision). While I think that bailing early is good and needless nesting is bad, I also think perhaps the nesting way is more clear, as an example. It also fits better with the fact that you might well have additional "else if" branches. We could give two examples, but that'd probably hurt more than it'd help. --81.225.78.42 07:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
