Not exactly. You'd replace `foo` with the `argment()`ed version, and then
this:
foo({ a: 'one', c: 'three' });
become equivalent to calling the original like this:
foo('one', undefined, 'three');
It's just a wrapper to make writing functions which take options easier. So
instead of writing this:
function foo(options){
if ( ! options) {
options = {};
}
if (options.a) {
// ...
}
}
you write this:
var foo = argment(function(a, b, c){
if (a) {
// ...
}
}, ['a', 'b', 'c']);
Maybe this is "tricky", but I want to play with it some more. I'm going to
throw in support for leading with normal arguments as soon as I get a chance
("Leave the first two arguments alone, combine the rest into an options
object."). I think it would work great for a case like the one in Jason's
link<http://blog.rebeccamurphey.com/objects-as-arguments-in-javascript-where-do-y>
.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:13 AM, xavierm02 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wouldn't this do the exact same?
>
> function argument( f ) {
> return function ( ) {
> return f.apply( this, arguments );
> };
> }
>
> And call is faster than apply
> http://jsperf.com/call-versus-apply
> so doing it for each function (for which you know the numer of used
> arguments) might be a bit better.
>
> --
> 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]
>
--
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]
