John McNally wrote:
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, John McNally wrote:
> >
> > > Was there a decision against allowing methods with empty arguments to be
> > > specified without the ()?
> > >
> > > Example.
> > >
> > > $browser.isJavaScriptOK
> > >
> > > as opposed to
> > >
> > > $browser.isJavaScriptOK()
> > >
> > > It obviously wouldn't be too hard to add the first form, is anyone
> > > opposed?
> >
> > As a standard boolean property I think it should be supported
> > in the #if directive. So if you have the following:
> >
> > #if ($user.LoggedIn)
>
> But wouldn't it be easier and more flexible to support the dropping of
> empty () in general? Why does Velocity not allow this when it was
> something that could be done in WM? I am thinking it is only a couple
> of lines of code in ASTIdentifier, am I wrong?
>
> Dropping the "is" would also be worthwhile, but then it also might be
> good to check the "has" prefix as well. I don't know if "has" in
> allowed in beans, but it is in wide use.
I'm in agreement with John that bean-like introspection needs to be
supported (eventually, at least).
--
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
