I'd absolutely second the catchall request. I currently jump through
nasty hoops or restrain my designs simply to avoid the lack of this
capacity. And if there were equivalents to valueForMissingKey and
setValueForMissingKey in addition to a function catchall, that would
be even better.
On 18 Nov, 2008, at 10:19 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
I don't see anything in the strawman wiki pages about a catchall
method for an object. I think this is something that is really missing
from the language and would substantially change the way some programs
are structured.
The only ways I know of to currently get the equivalent behavior to a
catch-all now is to either make objects as functions of their
messages, or to make a "send" function. Both of these options mean
leaving the standard object.message(a, b, c) message-passing syntax
behind and use object("message", a, b, c) or send(object, "message",
a, b, c) syntax. Both of these are substantially slower (though
infinitely and enjoyably flexible.)
Are catchalls candidates to be added to the strawman pages?
Peter
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
