On 2009/07/14 00:00:03, MarkM wrote:
LGTM, but see my question.
http://codereview.appspot.com/93041/diff/2002/2004
File src/com/google/caja/cajita.js (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/93041/diff/2002/2004#newcode1373
Line 1373: if (obj[name + '_canRead___']) { return (name in obj); }
Why not do it by leaving the original line alone and putting
if (!(name in obj)) { return false; }
on the previous line? I think it would be observationally equivalent
to what you
wrote, but a bit more in the style of the rest of the access checking
functions.
Well, for some reason it isn't the same. If I write it as you suggest
here, many tests fail, whereas they don't if I do it as in the CL. Feel
free to look it over in more depth if you feel it's important.
http://codereview.appspot.com/93041
