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?
>
