On Feb 1, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Mark Filipak wrote:
> Mr. Eich: Thank you for your suggestion. Unless I've been spending
> time with Mescalito, to implement
>
> getFirstChildOfElement(Papa).withTagName('baby'),
>
> since it has no idea which child is targeted, the first function
> would have to
Mr. Eich: Thank you for your suggestion. Unless I've been spending time with
Mescalito, to implement
getFirstChildOfElement(Papa).withTagName('baby'),
since it has no idea which child is targeted, the first function would have to
return an array of all children. Thus .withTagName() would have
On Feb 1, 2008 12:01 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Mark Filipak wrote:
>
> > What I have to write now:
> >
> > getFirstChildOfElementWithTagName(Papa, 'baby');
> >
> > What I'd like to be able to write:
> >
> > getFirstChildOfElement(Papa)withTagName('
On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Mark Filipak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (Sorry. What I meant to write is below.)
>
> May I make a pitch for an expanded function syntax? This example will
> say it all (I hope).
>
> What I have to write now:
>
> getFirstChildOfElementWithTagName(Papa, 'baby');
>
> What I'd l
Method overloading is the same thing as you know from C. When I said
that, I was more trying to get to what your goal was in suggesting the
feature. Do you want to be able to split this function into two
optional pieces, or would it be always called with both parts? If the
former, then proposed ove
