case about seamless-immutable

[rtfeldman]

Which function are you referring to?

[mvolkmann]

Immutable

[mvolkmann]

Linters complain when you call a function that starts uppercase rather than using the "new" keyword.

var data = new Immutable(thing); // linter likes
var data = Immutable(thing); // linter complains
var data = immutable(thing); // linter likes

[rtfeldman]

Ah. Fair point...I don't especially care one way or the other. Any other opinions on this? @raorao?

[mvolkmann]

I know when I see an uppercase function name I immediately think it is a constructor function.

[raorao]

Personally I like the uppercase function name, since Immutable is a constructor in spirit. Perhaps there should just be a lower case version of the function in the public interface for the linted among us.

[rtfeldman]

I agree about "constructor in spirit" (which was why I named it that way.)

Actually it just occurred to me that this seems easily solvable by the library end user, e.g. var immutable = require("seamless-immutable.js") - although @mvolkmann please feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. 😃

[mvolkmann]

Ah, that's certainly true. But if you want to make it usable in browsers that don't support ES6 modules, I guess you'll want to expose that as a global variable.

[rtfeldman]

Well, it's just as easy if you use RequireJS, Browserify, Webpack, Node, etc. - and of course if you're just attaching it to window, you can always go window.immutable = Immutable, so I think that's frictionless enough that this is worth closing.

Thanks for pointing this out!