Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with revealing-module-pattern
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 2041
This pattern is like the module pattern; it focuses on public & private methods. The difference is that the revealing module pattern was engineered as a way to ensure that all methods and variables are kept private until they are explicitly exposed; usually through an object literal returned by the closure in which it’s defined. It also allows the developer to avoid a lot of `this.` in the code.
3
votes
Extracting pattern and simplifying testing
One option would be to create a generic method that accepts delegates to the methods:
var combined = Combine(_builder.Build, _formatter.Format, _loader.Load, _selector.Select);
return combined(i);
…
- 24.3k