You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Over time, it’s likely that more and more methods will be added to JSObjectRefs. Currently, there are get, set, jsValue, subscript, and (shortly) instanceof. However, at least some of these methods are likely to appear in regular JS objects (specifically get and set). While there is the escape hatch of calling object[dynamicMember: "get"] or object.get("get"), this is less than optimal and it would be great if there was a way to have a separate namespace for the JavaScriptKit-defined methods so they’d never clash with something from JS.
Maybe it would be sufficient to just add a regular subscript method object["get"] or object[1]?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Over time, it’s likely that more and more methods will be added to JSObjectRefs. Currently, there are
get
,set
,jsValue
,subscript
, and (shortly)instanceof
. However, at least some of these methods are likely to appear in regular JS objects (specificallyget
andset
). While there is the escape hatch of callingobject[dynamicMember: "get"]
orobject.get("get")
, this is less than optimal and it would be great if there was a way to have a separate namespace for the JavaScriptKit-defined methods so they’d never clash with something from JS.Maybe it would be sufficient to just add a regular
subscript
methodobject["get"]
orobject[1]
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: