pikajude has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
pikajude has joined #elliottcable
pikajude- has joined #elliottcable
pikajude has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
meowrobot has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
Rurik has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
pikajude- is now known as pikajude
Rurik has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
pikajude has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
pikajude has joined #elliottcable
<ec>
alexgordon: what why would you think that
<ec>
you get Haskell, I don't, you're already leagues ahead of me
<ec>
I think *I'm* the dumbest programmer I personally know.
<ec>
I'm absolutely terrible; I'm just really enthusiastic. :P
<ec>
ja: it's not a *terrible* idea to do []
<ec>
depends on your purposes; if you're exclusively targeting node or new-shit, then you can dynamically create setters/getters on an object
<ec>
realize that foo['bar'] is literally identical to foo.bar, and all you'll be doing is setting up a setter-function for `foo.bar = …`
<ec>
but yes, as long as you're targeting Very Modern stuff; and your API will be informed of all the names of things in other ways before they're used like this (so that it can create the setters); and you're sure that your use-case is one that your users won't find this behaviour surprising for …