(It's 4am for me, I'm sick, and meds have been taken... so this may be
incredibly dumb)
An earlier thread got me thinking. Currently when checking a value nested
several layers deep within an object, you have to do something along the
lines of:
d = {};
[stuff]
if ( d && d.foo && d.foo.bar && d.foo.bar.bam ) {
[stuff]
}
And setting it is even more verbose:
d = {};
d.foo = d.foo || {};
... you get the point.
What would happen if "undefined" were smarter, kinda like an empty ref in
Perl (did I really just say that? ugh.). Why can't we do:
d = {};
[stuff]
if ( d.foo.bar.bam ) {
[stuff]
}
and
d = {};
d.foo.bar.bam = "Hi Mentors!"; // { foo: { bar: { bam: "Hi Mentors!" } } }
What's the harm in having the compiler do that bit of optimization for us?
What code would it break? Is there any code that it would make less
maintainable? Do custom getters/setters break this?
_jason
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
