So would other kind of referring to objects under lz use the same syntax
Eg.
|lz.Audio.playSound('poof') would become
||<Audio>.playSound('poof')
Also this would mean that one needs to use more of those <![CDATA[ ... ]]>
because xml does not like < and > other than as tag markers.
But that's not a biggie since you have to use them most of the time already.
It is a nuisance in attributes however because there you can not use CDATA tags
Eg. <view someAttr="${<Browser>.getInitArg(..)}"/>
But one could still use lz.Browser in those situations.
Then again two ways to do the same thing adds complexity and confusion ...
- rami
|
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?
