> No. You're still damaging anyone in the final cases - native extenders and > those who just fall completely through.
Native extenders would go through `native-satisfies?`, no? The object extension I'm suggesting would happen after that. About those that just fall completely through, not sure - can't think of any cases where someone would use `get` against something that's not nil, ILookup , an array, or string. Very possible I'm missing a valid use case though. > Now because ClojureScript hasn't hard coded a particularly semantic for `get` > on `object` you are free to mold the semantics to your specific application. > Maybe you want to look up the prototype chain. Maybe you want to look at some > global table? Is that not something folks would do by extending ILookup? The ILookup test would come before the object test, so wouldn't you still get custom semantics the same way, with the same performance + flexibility? -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
