Hi,

I doubt it'll make core, but there's no reason you can't do that for
your own stuff:

* * * *
Hash.addMethods({
    eachPair: function(iterator, context) {

        return this.each(function(pair, index) {
            iterator.call(context, pair.key, pair.value, index);
        });
    }
});
* * * *

Or if you like to use named functions for the main bits (I do):

* * * *
Hash.addMethods((function(){

    function eachPair(iterator, context) {

        return this.each(function(pair, index) {
            iterator.call(context, pair.key, pair.value, index);
        });
    }

    return {eachPair: eachPair};

})());
* * * *

FWIW,
--
T.J. Crowder
Independent Software Consultant
tj / crowder software / com
www.crowdersoftware.com

On Jan 23, 11:48 pm, Mikhail Kozhevnikov <ambl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why not to have an iterator over the hash like
> Hash.each_pair(function(key, value){...});
> as a shortcut for
> Hash.each(function(pair){
>    var id = pair.key, obj = pair.value;});
>
> The point is that if one makes heavy use of hashes in code, this small
> redundancies get really annoying. Why bother with reassignment at all?
> Well, most importantly it makes make the code more readable, as the
> name of the variable reflects the semantics, while "pair.value"
> doesn't.
>
> Cheers,
> Mikhail.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptacul...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.

Reply via email to