Would it break anything if calling file.iniGetObject("section"); returnedãundefined instead of an empty object if the section "section" doesn't exist inãthe file?ããIt's kind of a pain to work around that.ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ The BRoKEN BuBBLE (MDJ.ATH.CX)ã

Re: file.iniGetObject()ã By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 13 2010 10:30 amãã > Would it break anything if calling file.iniGetObject("section"); returnedã > undefined instead of an empty object if the section "section" doesn't existã > in the file?ã >ã > It's kind of a pain to work around that.ããI just committed a change to do that, try it and let me know. Now, one caveatãis that the method will return null/undefined if the specified section doesn'tãexist in the .ini file *or* it contains no keys/values. The second conditionãmay prove to be a problem for some scripts. We'll have to see.ãã digital manããSnapple "Real Fact" #93:ãA Kangaroo can jump 30 feet.ã---ã þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.netã

Re: file.iniGetObject()ã By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Tue Sep 14 2010 16:32:06ãã > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 13 2010 10:30 amã > ã > > Would it break anything if calling file.iniGetObject("section"); returnedã > > undefined instead of an empty object if the section "section" doesn't exiã > > in the file?ã > >ã > > It's kind of a pain to work around that.ã > ã > I just committed a change to do that, try it and let me know. Now, one caveaã > is that the method will return null/undefined if the specified section doesnã > exist in the .ini file *or* it contains no keys/values. The second conditionã > may prove to be a problem for some scripts. We'll have to see.ã > ããhmm. there's no way to have it both ways? ããe.g. empty object if the section exists with no keys/values, and null/undefinedãif it's not there at allããã---ã þ Synchronet þ The BRoKEN BuBBLE (MDJ.ATH.CX)ã

Re: file.iniGetObject()ã By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Tue Sep 14 2010 08:22 pmãã > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Tue Sep 14 2010 16:32:06ã >ã > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 13 2010 10:30 amã > >ã > > > Would it break anything if calling file.iniGetObject("section");ã > > > returned undefined instead of an empty object if the sectionã > > > "section" doesn't exi in the file?ã > > >ã > > > It's kind of a pain to work around that.ã > >ã > > I just committed a change to do that, try it and let me know. Now, oneã > > cavea is that the method will return null/undefined if the specifiedã > > section doesn exist in the .ini file *or* it contains no keys/values.ã > > The second condition may prove to be a problem for some scripts. We'llã > > have to see.ã > >ã >ã > hmm. there's no way to have it both ways?ã >ã > e.g. empty object if the section exists with no keys/values, andã > null/undefined if it's not there at allããI think I would prefer that behavior. How about you?ãã digital manããSnapple "Real Fact" #94:ãLizards communicate by doing push-ups.ã---ã þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.netã

Re: file.iniGetObject()ã By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Mon Sep 20 2010 15:14:14ãã > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Tue Sep 14 2010 08:22 pmã > ã > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Tue Sep 14 2010 16:32:06ã > >ã > > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 13 2010 10:30 amã > > >ã > > > > Would it break anything if calling file.iniGetObject("section");ã > > > > returned undefined instead of an empty object if the sectionã > > > > "section" doesn't exi in the file?ã > > > >ã > > > > It's kind of a pain to work around that.ã > > >ã > > > I just committed a change to do that, try it and let me know. Now, oneã > > > cavea is that the method will return null/undefined if the specifiedã > > > section doesn exist in the .ini file *or* it contains no keys/values.ã > > > The second condition may prove to be a problem for some scripts. We'llã > > > have to see.ã > > >ã > >ã > > hmm. there's no way to have it both ways?ã > >ã > > e.g. empty object if the section exists with no keys/values, andã > > null/undefined if it's not there at allã > ã > I think I would prefer that behavior. How about you?ã > ããcertainly.. saw the commit, thanks!ãããããã---ã þ Synchronet þ The BRoKEN BuBBLE (MDJ.ATH.CX)ã

Re: file.iniGetObject()ã By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 20 2010 09:58 pmãã > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Mon Sep 20 2010 15:14:14ã >ã > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Tue Sep 14 2010 08:22 pmã > >ã > > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > > By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Tue Sep 14 2010 16:32:06ã > > >ã > > > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > > > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 13 2010 10:30 amã > > > >ã > > > > > Would it break anything if callingã > > > > > file.iniGetObject("section"); returned undefined instead of anã > > > > > empty object if the section "section" doesn't exi in the file?ã > > > > >ã > > > > > It's kind of a pain to work around that.ã > > > >ã > > > > I just committed a change to do that, try it and let me know. Now,ã > > > > one cavea is that the method will return null/undefined if theã > > > > specified section doesn exist in the .ini file *or* it contains noã > > > > keys/values. The second condition may prove to be a problem forã > > > > some scripts. We'll have to see.ã > > > >ã > > >ã > > > hmm. there's no way to have it both ways?ã > > >ã > > > e.g. empty object if the section exists with no keys/values, andã > > > null/undefined if it's not there at allã > >ã > > I think I would prefer that behavior. How about you?ã > >ã >ã > certainly.. saw the commit, thanks!ããCool. Are you able to build and test?ãã digital manããSnapple "Real Fact" #173:ãChinese is the most spoken language in the world. ã---ã þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.netã

Re: file.iniGetObject()ã By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Wed Sep 22 2010 14:40:11ãã > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 20 2010 09:58 pmã > ã > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Mon Sep 20 2010 15:14:14ã > >ã > > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Tue Sep 14 2010 08:22 pmã > > >ã > > > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > > > By: Digital Man to MCMLXXIX on Tue Sep 14 2010 16:32:06ã > > > >ã > > > > > Re: file.iniGetObject()ã > > > > > By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Sep 13 2010 10:30 amã > > > > >ã > > > > > > Would it break anything if callingã > > > > > > file.iniGetObject("section"); returned undefined instead of aã > > > > > > empty object if the section "section" doesn't exi in the fileã > > > > > >ã > > > > > > It's kind of a pain to work around that.ã > > > > >ã > > > > > I just committed a change to do that, try it and let me know. Noã > > > > > one cavea is that the method will return null/undefined if theã > > > > > specified section doesn exist in the .ini file *or* it contains ã > > > > > keys/values. The second condition may prove to be a problem forã > > > > > some scripts. We'll have to see.ã > > > > >ã > > > >ã > > > > hmm. there's no way to have it both ways?ã > > > >ã > > > > e.g. empty object if the section exists with no keys/values, andã > > > > null/undefined if it's not there at allã > > >ã > > > I think I would prefer that behavior. How about you?ã > > >ã > >ã > > certainly.. saw the commit, thanks!ã > ã > Cool. Are you able to build and test?ã > ããI will have a go at it tomorrowããã ããã---ã þ Synchronet þ The BRoKEN BuBBLE (MDJ.ATH.CX)ã