Sorry, had an error in that last comment .. the declaration line now
handles an undefined 'value' and sets null.
Object.prototype.define = function(args, value) {
if (typeof(args) != "string") { throw "Expected a String"; }
args = args.split(".");
var i = null,
l = args.length,
p = this;
for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
(p[args[i]] === undefined) ? p[args[i]] = ((i+1 < l) ? {} :
((value !
== undefined) ? value : null)) : void(0);
p = p[args[i]];
}
return this;
};
I can't think of a nice way to shorthand the if statement, but at
least you can define() anything with a value by not using json (easier
to read)
On Feb 16, 10:40 am, Jason Mulligan <[email protected]>
wrote:
> a more complete implementation...
>
> Object.prototype.define = function(args, value) {
> if (typeof(args) != "string") { throw "Expected a String"; }
>
> args = args.split(".");
>
> var i = null,
> l = args.length,
> p = this;
>
> for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
> (p[args[i]] === undefined) ? p[args[i]] = ((i+1 < l) ? {} :
> value) :
> void(0);
> p = p[args[i]];
> }
>
> return this;
>
> };
>
> you'd use it like this..
>
> var a = {};
> a.define('b.c.d.e.f', 123);
>
> On Feb 16, 9:56 am, Jason Mulligan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually, here ...
>
> > Object.prototype.define = function(args) {
> > if (typeof(args) != "object") { throw "Expected an Object"; }
> > for (var i in args) { this[i] = args[i]; }
> > return this;
>
> > };
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:39 am, Jason Mulligan <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > that's not really valid, undefined is as valuable as null when
> > > checking an object; just write a handler and drop it onto the array
> > > prototype.
>
> > > On Feb 16, 7:08 am, Jason Persampieri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > (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]
