I have a code base that uses a lot of get and get-in for nested forms. I want to be able to use native javascript objects without (a lot of) code rewriting.
js> cljs.user.o = {foo: 42} // in js console
cljs.user> (get o "foo" ); => 42; in cljs console
Since I only query the forms, but do not modify them, I think it is enough to implement get (get-in dependency). This is my attempt,
(extend-protocol ILookup
js/Object
(-lookup [mk] (aget mk))
(-lookup [mk not-found (or (aget mk) not-found)))
It seems to work, but it breaks a lot of things in a strange way.
You are modifying the Object prototype, you don’t want to do this, the following is better:
(extend-protocol ILookup
object
(-lookup [mk] (aget mk))
(-lookup [mk not-found] (or (aget mk) not-found)))
I have a code base that uses a lot of get and get-in for nested forms. I want to be able to use native javascript objects without (a lot of) code rewriting .
js> cljs.user.o = {foo: 42} // in js console
cljs.user> (get o "foo"); => 42; in cljs console
Since I only query the forms, but don’t modify them, I think it is enough to implement get (get-in dependency). This is my attempt ,
< p>
(extend-protocol ILookup
js/Object
(-lookup [mk] (aget mk))
(-lookup [mk not-found (or (aget mk) not-found)))
It seems to work, but it breaks a lot of things in a strange way.
< p>You are modifying the Object prototype and you don’t want to do this. The following is better:
(extend-protocol ILookup
object
(-lookup [mk] (aget mk))
(-lookup [mk not-found] (or (aget mk) not-found)))