Interesting.
Actually String( ) already acts as a sort of a delegator by invoking
toString( ) on whatever you pass into it. It's actually quite flexible
- we can *redefine* toString on any object and make it return anything
we want. Checking for type (as you propose) just seems a little too
limiting to me.
Take a look at how easy the implementation is:
(by redefining native "toString" on instance methods to return curried
versions of themselves)
...
var myObj = new MyClass('A', 'B', 'C');
$w(' first second third ').each(function(m) {
myObj[m].toString = Prototype.K.curry(myObj[m]());
})
var myOut = 'First: #{first}, Second: #{second}, Third:
#{third}'.interpolate(myObj);
myOut; // => "First: A, Second: B, Third: C"
The only limitatation I see here is that we need to know a list of
methods to augment. On the other hand, it is possible to change
Class.create to do all of this in a more generic way.
Best,
kangax
On Mar 5, 1:12 pm, "J. Gregory Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I have [admittedly simple] code as follows:
>
> MyClass = Class.create({
> _a: false,
>
> _ b: false,
>
> _c: false,
>
> initialize: function(a, b, c) {
> this._a = a;
> this._b = b;
> this._c = c;
> },
>
> first: function(){
> return this._a;
> },
>
> second: function(){
> return this._b;
> },
>
> third: function(){
> return this._c;
> }
>
> });
>
> var myObj = new MyClass('A','B','C');
> var myTmpl = new Template('First: #{first}, Second: #{second}, Third:
> #{third}');
> var myOut = myTmpl.evaluate(myObj);
>
> Then the string value placed in myOut will not be:
>
> "First: A, Second: B, Third: C"
>
> but rather will be:
>
> "First: function(){
> return this._a;
> }, Second: function(){
> return this._b;
> }, Third:function(){
> return this._c;
> }"
>
> Based on the code for Template#evaluate, it would seem that the line:
>
> return before + String(ctx);
>
> could be replaced by:
>
> return before + (Object.isFunction(ctx)) ? ctx.apply(object) :
> String(ctx);
>
> and produce [the/my] desired effect of rendering the return value from
> the function instead of the function literal. Is there a reason why
> this would not be workable, or should not be done?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> G
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
