Subj : file.iniGetObject()
To   : Digital Man
From : MCMLXXIX
Date : Wed Sep 22 2010 11:21 pm

  Re: file.iniGetObject()
  By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Wed Sep 22 2010 14:40:11

 >   Re: file.iniGetObject()
 >   By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 20 2010 09:58 pm
 > 
 >  >   Re: file.iniGetObject()
 >  >   By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Mon Sep 20 2010 15:14:14
 >  >
 >  >  >   Re: file.iniGetObject()
 >  >  >   By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Tue Sep 14 2010 08:22 pm
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  >   Re: file.iniGetObject()
 >  >  >  >   By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Tue Sep 14 2010 16:32:06
 >  >  >  >
 >  >  >  >  >   Re: file.iniGetObject()
 >  >  >  >  >   By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 13 2010 10:30 am
 >  >  >  >  >
 >  >  >  >  >  > Would it break anything if calling
 >  >  >  >  >  > file.iniGetObject("section"); returned undefined instead of a
 >  >  >  >  >  > empty object if the section "section" doesn't exi in the file
 >  >  >  >  >  >
 >  >  >  >  >  > It's kind of a pain to work around that.
 >  >  >  >  >
 >  >  >  >  > I just committed a change to do that, try it and let me know. No
 >  >  >  >  > one cavea is that the method will return null/undefined if the
 >  >  >  >  > specified section doesn exist in the .ini file *or* it contains 
 >  >  >  >  > keys/values. The second condition may prove to be a problem for
 >  >  >  >  > some scripts. We'll have to see.
 >  >  >  >  >
 >  >  >  >
 >  >  >  > hmm. there's no way to have it both ways?
 >  >  >  >
 >  >  >  > e.g. empty object if the section exists with no keys/values, and
 >  >  >  > null/undefined if it's not there at all
 >  >  >
 >  >  > I think I would prefer that behavior. How about you?
 >  >  >
 >  >
 >  > certainly.. saw the commit, thanks!
 > 
 > Cool. Are you able to build and test?
 > 

I will have a go at it tomorrow


 


---
 þ Synchronet þ The BRoKEN BuBBLE (MDJ.ATH.CX)

.