strawman:catchalls?

Jeff Watkins watkins at apple.com
Wed Nov 19 11:43:04 PST 2008


I'd absolutely second the catchall request. I currently jump through  
nasty hoops or restrain my designs simply to avoid the lack of this  
capacity. And if there were equivalents to valueForMissingKey and  
setValueForMissingKey in addition to a function catchall, that would  
be even better.

On 18 Nov, 2008, at 10:19 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:

> I don't see anything in the strawman wiki pages about a catchall
> method for an object. I think this is something that is really missing
> from the language and would substantially change the way some programs
> are structured.
>
> The only ways I know of to currently get the equivalent behavior to a
> catch-all now is to either make objects as functions of their
> messages, or to make a "send" function. Both of these options mean
> leaving the standard object.message(a, b, c) message-passing syntax
> behind and use object("message", a, b, c) or send(object, "message",
> a, b, c) syntax. Both of these are substantially slower (though
> infinitely and enjoyably flexible.)
>
> Are catchalls candidates to be added to the strawman pages?
>
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Es-discuss mailing list
> Es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



More information about the Es-discuss mailing list