No subject

Sat Apr 15 14:32:53 EDT 2006

>> 6. Conditionals
>>   3. Executable statements in conditionals MUST be avoided.

>> because that's an established pattern from C:

Yes, but that's one of the ugly things about C. You can write really gnarly
complex expressions with all kinds of side effects. Good for kernal hacking
in the old days, not so good today.

Scott J. Miles
TurboAjax Group

-----Original Message-----
From: dojo-contributors-bounces at
[mailto:dojo-contributors-bounces at] On Behalf Of Bill Keese
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:35 AM
To: dojo dev.
Subject: Re: Fwd: [dojo-contributors] [feedback wanted] Preferred

Wow, I didn't even notice this thread before.  To repeat my suggestion from
the dojo-interest list, given that you want to combine two features (reading
current value and advancing) into one function, you should call the function

while(var item = it.get()){

because that's an established pattern from C:

while( (i=getChar()) != EOF )
while( (p=gets()) != NULL )

Tom Trenka wrote:
> I hate to resurrect this, but...
> Aside from "iterator wars", this is what I'm going to go with:
> var it=col.getIterator();
> while(!it.atEnd()){
>     var item=it.current();
>     // do stuff
> }
> The idea here is that current() not only returns the current item, but 
> also advances the internal cursor to the next item in the collection.
> atEnd() should be obvious. I will also provide an "item" property, 
> which will be the current item in the collection. Hopefully this is 
> the best comprimise I can think of.  It should also be able to support a
for form...
> for(it.current();!it.atEnd(); it.current()){
>    // do stuff.
> }
> (still thinking about that one but it should work as long as the 
> initializer is called)
> ...and I will try to write it so that calling current() past the end 
> of the collection returns null, so the do...while form should work as
> do{
>    // something
> } while (it.current())
> (only issue with this form is that there has to be something in the 
> collection for it to work, but internally you will be able to test if 
> item == null).
> Would that cover all the bases?  If I have time, I might try to add 
> functional iteration to the iterators as well, but that's low on the 
> priority list (fix the imperative first, then look at the functional).
> Also, does anyone see any holes with this?  I haven't coded anything 
> yet (slamming on a project right now) but I thought I would throw this 
> out in time for the meeting (without getting into another holy war).
> trt

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006

More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list