Not valid *in that context*. (e4x)
On Nov 12, 2009, at 3:43 PM, P T Withington wrote:
On 2009-11-12, at 16:34, Rami Ojares / AMG wrote:
Do you mean new <'view'>(...) ?
I am quite satisfied with new lz['view'](...)
Or do you mean new <view>(...)
as in new lz.view(...)?
Yes. I was thinking:
new <view>
might be more obvious. And that it would be an extension, because
<view> is not a valid Javascript symbol -- it would normally be an
error.
-rami
I wonder if we should extend our script compiler to let you say:
new <view>(...)
and if that would be any more obvious than:
new lz['view'](...)
?
Is the <> syntax already used by some Javascript extension?
