On 2009-11-12, at 16:34, Rami Ojares / AMG wrote: > Do you mean new <'view'>(...) ? > > I am quite satisfied with new lz['view'](...) > > Or do you mean new <view>(...) > as in new lz.view(...)?
Yes. I was thinking: new <view> might be more obvious. And that it would be an extension, because <view> is not a valid Javascript symbol -- it would normally be an error. > -rami >> I wonder if we should extend our script compiler to let you say: >> >> new <view>(...) >> >> and if that would be any more obvious than: >> >> new lz['view'](...) >> >> ? >> >> Is the <> syntax already used by some Javascript extension? >> >
