Np, I only made it 'cause i read this thread and was bored at work :) .. and saw the value in it afterwards. I revised it a little, I recommend doing the same.
On Feb 16, 5:44 pm, Jason Persampieri <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > By the way, CoffeeScript provides a convenient sugar for that: > > > obj.foo?.bar? and stuff?() > > > which desugars into (notice, how elegantly the last "stuff" is checked to > > be a functon): > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Angus Croll <[email protected]> wrote: > > What worries me is the unwanted side effects. > > > console.log(d.foo.bar.bam) and maybe you just created 3 new objects > > The CoffeeScript syntax is very nice, but I'm still not seeing the necessity > of the extra syntax. Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly certain there's > something I'm missing (and I keep thinking it may have to do with function > references... but can't come up with an example). > > The way I imagined this happening: > - If this is a LeftHandSideExpression, generate objects as necessary (which > is what you'd want, right?). > - Otherwise, as soon as a property is "undefined", the entire expression is > "undefined"... and no new objects are created. > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Jason Mulligan < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > That's really why it shouldn't behave that way. > > > Btw, I just added that define() to abaaso(.com); my jslib .. it's > > pretty useful when you need to work with something pre-existing, not > > ideal for constructing (json is). > > I'll likely be stealing this... but only for my personal stuff. It's hard > enough getting my team to follow best practices anyway :) -- 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]
