avoid an extra closure when not needed (review!) #1408
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
also improves readability
| Please don't submit duplicate issues or PR's just comment on the original even if its closed. |
| it is not a duplicate! that one was against 1-11-stable, this one is against master, i don't think i can modify that. |
| @thg2k The reason that pr #1405 was closed was not the branch but the content of the change. This is the first time any one has mentioned the branch related to this issue at all. You also explicitly said this was the same.
Since discussion began on #1405 lets keep discussion in one place so its easier for others follow. Feel free to add comments to that issue we get notification of all comments even if the issue is closed. |
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
i'm submitting the same closure-removal again, please consider again this change, i think it is really bloated and unnecessary to have a closure-inside-closure here, plus you already have a closure-global in widget.js line 28, check it out!! I see no reason to allow it there and not here.