On Mar 28, 2:03 pm, "Ryan Gahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe, though, that these proposed solutions will be equally deemed by
> the OP's company as "too much work"... otherwise they would just fix their
> for..in loops to not be for..in loops, right?
Not necessarily, only the OP can answer that. It might be that adding
a simple test to every for..in loop is easier than changing the arrays
to objects with an array property, which would require a change to
every for..in loop anyway.
Or it might not.
Perhaps the authors of Prototype.js can consider not extending
Array.prototype and creating their own array object that is extended,
so that $A() returns an extended array and the built-in constructor
does not.
--
Rob
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
