Remind me: why did I ever start working on a compiler? .__. Can't keep that complexity in check.
Show this thread
Note to future self: NEVER pass emitters around. Don't ever do it. Nest emitters if you have to. Inherit from emitters. Just don't pass them as function arguments. It's going to create multi-dimensional string-typed APIs and you _will_ be confused. So just. Don't.
-
-
Alternatively: Emitters are the wrong pattern.
-
Ohhh no. I'm willing to die on this hill defending event emitters :P They even make sense in this case, just not the way we used them haha.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve struggled with this. Any examples of alternatives?
-
Just keep a central emitter. Define classes that might emit events. Or perhaps even better: only ever expose static methods, and keep the rest hidden behind an interface. The moment you perform layers of dynamic dispatches you're in for a world of hurt :P
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Are you saying that I have been using nanocomponents wrong all this time? :(
-
ahaha, not necessarily - so having a single emitter that is shared by the whole application isn't bad. But passing emitters as function arguments just because is a _very_ bad idea.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What about using symbols? It enforces the use of whatever the component defines. It doesn't however manage the explosion in complexity, but I feel you manage that by partitioning and nesting your components :)
-
Oooph, no symbols won't help here
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I actually did this a few months ago and it hasn't bitten me yet.... haha
#YOLO -
lmao; just a matter of time :P
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.