Oh, right. I _knew_ there was something... Never mind! On 2009-11-12, at 16:46, Neil Mix wrote:
> 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? >>>> >>> >> >> >
