On Nov 11, 2011, at 5:22 PM, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Dave, if nesting were out of the question and monocle-mustache operator
always looked like an object literal as they currently exist, would it still
be as vile? With that form, I'm a big
On Nov 12, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at 5:22 PM, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Dave, if nesting were out of the question and monocle-mustache operator
always looked like an object literal as they currently exist,
2011/11/11 Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com:
We've all looked at jQuery code and envied the conciseness of its chaining
APIs. Most of us also looked at it and thought; Yuk, making everything a
method of jQuery and always return the jQuery object is ugly.
However, I (with some help)
On Nov 12, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
[Apologies for interrupting...]
No problem!
If we do classes, what .{ use-cases remain?
The operator allows you to use object literals (including all of the niceties
that will be introduced in ES.next) where you previously had to do
More:
function Point(x, y) {
this.{x,y};
}
function Monster(name) {
this.{
name: name,
@strength: 10,
@age: 0
};
}
// namespace exists in multiple files (possibly less relevant with modules)
namespace.{
function1() {
},
function2() {
}
}
If
On Nov 12, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
More:
function Point(x, y) {
this.{x,y};
}
Ok, maybe. But
function Monster(name) {
this.{
name: name,
just name here should do, not name: name -- right?
@strength: 10,
@age: 0
};
}
Someone
function Point(x, y) {
this.{x,y};
}
Ok, maybe. But
function Monster(name) {
this.{
name: name,
just name here should do, not name: name -- right?
Ah, I thought one couldn’t mix the key-value form and the value-less syntactic
sugar. But it makes sense to allow
We've all looked at jQuery code and envied the conciseness of its chaining
APIs. Most of us also looked at it and thought; Yuk, making everything a
method of jQuery and always return the jQuery object is ugly.
However, I (with some help) realized that the .{ operator can be used to
solve most of
document.querySelector('#my-element').{
style.{
'color': 'red',
'padding': '5px'
}.
textContent: 'Hello'
};
I don't think I've seen this form of the .{ syntax discussed before. Is an
expression being used as the LHS of an object literal property assignment?
What does foo.{
It appears to be assigning multiple properties in place and at once and
returning the original object if I am understanding correctly.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
document.querySelector('#my-element').{
style.{
'color': 'red',
'padding':
I'm sorry, i don't understand the semantics you're going for here. What is
document.querySelector('#myTable').{
querySelectorAll('.firstColumn').{
style.{background: 'red', border: '2px solid black'},
textContent: 'first column'
},
querySelectorAll('.lastColumn').{
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:27, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
document.querySelector('#my-element').{
style.{
'color': 'red',
'padding': '5px'
}.
textContent: 'Hello'
};
I don't think I've seen this form of the .{ syntax discussed before. Is an
expression
On Nov 11, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
We've all looked at jQuery code and envied the conciseness of its chaining
APIs. Most of us also looked at it and thought; Yuk, making everything a
method of jQuery and always return the jQuery object is ugly.
Beauty is in the eye of the
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:38, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
But ignoring that, the decision we made at last november's meeting was that
DOM attributes would be specified as setters on the prototype, so
someElement.style.{background:blue, border: 2px solid black}
would add to own
Dave, if nesting were out of the question and monocle-mustache operator always
looked like an object literal as they currently exist, would it still be as
vile? With that form, I'm a big fan.
/Rick
On Nov 11, 2011, at 3:13 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at
On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Dave, if nesting were out of the question and monocle-mustache operator
always looked like an object literal as they currently exist, would it still
be as vile? With that form, I'm a big fan.
I'm of multiple minds (a condition I'm gradually
While I was admiring the pros of its mutation, I overlooked how unclear it was
that a mutation was even occurring... Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
/Rick
On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:22 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Dave, if
17 matches
Mail list logo
