[Laszlo-dev] Syntactic sugar

[Henry Minsky]

Is IE7 the only runtime platform that we support now that does not
have setters ?



On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM, André Bargull <andre.bargull at udo.edu> wrote:
> If we had (native) setters in all runtimes, things would be much easier.
> I've you add an alias for "setAttribute", I'd like to remind you on the
> current limitation of the "setAttribute" inline compiler:
>>
>> // FIXME: [2002-12-03 ptw] This substitution is not correct
>> // because it does not verify that the method being inlined is
>> // actually LzNode.setAttribute.
>
> So any new alias (let's say "set(..)") will be restricted to the same
> limitation.
>
> And there is another issue which comes to my mind: in my opinion, it's not
> only the longer method name ("setAttribute" instead of "setX"), but also the
> whole function call with attribute-name in quotes + value. Just as an idea,
> what about adding a new syntax? (I do know adding a non-ECMAScript syntax
> may be harmful..)
> For example to set the "x"-attribute to "10" on a view "v":
>  set v.x = 10;
>
>
>
>
>> I'd like to replace:
>>
>>   v.setAttribute('x', ...);
>>
>> with:
>>
>>   v.x = ...;
>>
>> someday.  Having an alias `set` for `setAttribute` would be a fine
>>  interim step.
>>
>> On 2008-12-03, at 00:45EST, Max Carlson wrote:
>>
>> >/ I've had a number of developers tell me they miss the shorthand of  />/
>> > setX(...) - 4.2 now requires setAttribute('x', ...).  This is good  />/ for
>> > consistency, but it's bad for backward compatibility and makes  />/ code
>> > more verbose.  setAttribute('foo', ...) requires a lot of extra  />/
>> > typing...
>> />/
>> />/ What do you think about having the compiler expand the old setX/Y()
>>  />/ methods into the corresponding setAttribute('x/y')?  We could add a
>>  />/ terse alias for setAttribute() - set(), or maybe s()...
>> />/
>> />/ Thoughts?
>> />/ -- />/ Regards,
>> />/ Max Carlson
>> />/ OpenLaszlo.org
>> /
>



-- 
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
hminsky at laszlosystems.com