Russell Leggett wrote: > If you desperately need it, you should be able to make a library for it, and > then if you need the extra syntax, add an extra compile step
I was simply making sure everyone was on the same page as regards e4x and was making suggestions to try to bridge the gap. I don't need it myself, though I imagine the "you" there wasn't necessarily aimed at me. > I'm not saying its an insignificant effort, but it seems fairly > straightforward. The standardized grammar for it is defined as an extension > to Ecmascript after all. Though source to source processors are a source of significant friction (complicating build and debug), this would indeed be something for the community of e4x supporters to consider. Hopefully, the right people will see this thread. I think that assignment into quasis may yet be useful, but perhaps it doesn't belong in this thread. Regards, Grant Husbands. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
