Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Made cell.save consistent with row.save in terms of requiring a callback (#105) #114

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 27, 2017

Conversation

tablekat
Copy link
Contributor

row.save could be called without a callback, while cell.save could not be. Made them consistent with each other, as well as consistent with the example in README.md

@theoephraim
Copy link
Owner

Maybe it's better to not let row.save be called without a callback?

The example is definitely misleading because it doesn't include them, but I think it might cause more confusion to let people call them without realizing they need a callback.

What was your use case?

@tablekat
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any time you're adding data but don't need to read or modify it later, there's no reason to wait for the async call to finish.

My use case was just generating data and then writing it all sequentially. I found myself just repeatedly calling .save(function(){}) since I never needed to know that it finished.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants