On 11 June 2013 19:56, Michael Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Invocation might be something like:
>
> var o = {
> out: '',
> write: function(s) { o.out += s; },
> writeln: function(s) { o.out += s + '\n'; }
> obj: { title: 'whatever', otherMetaData: … }
> };
> with (o) {
> eval(script);
> }
> ...
> document.write(o.out);
And what's wrong with replacing this by the following?
{
let out = ''
function write(s) { o.out += s; },
function writeln(s) { o.out += s + '\n'; }
let obj = { title: 'whatever', otherMetaData: … }
eval(script);
}
Moreover, if the script code is generated anyway, why not simply
generate a function like:
function(o) {
o.writeln('<head>');
o.write('<title>');
o.write(obj.title);
o.writeln('</title>');
o.writeln('<body>');
for (i=1; i<6; i++) {
o.write('<div>Line #');
o.write(i);
o.writeln('</div>');
}
o.writeln(</body>');
o.writeln(</html>');
}
Invoke as:
eval(script)(o)
So I don't see how your example is an argument for 'with'. Seems
completely unnecessary.
/Andreas
--
--
v8-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"v8-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
