Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Jake Jarvis <pig_in_shoes@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: eval() or What?
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:39:17 +0100
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <9m4505F7d7U1@mid.uni-berlin.de>
References: <fn8nf756jclubi6uu8510fcqjt57lhcd15@4ax.com> <9m1pc5F743U1@mid.uni-berlin.de> <9tgnf7ps2um6d8bubb8725kqlakckln11i@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1Rhh+b1kM5y/chMNZkiPlA2Iv1lPt9nGxEvxGAgI0lwfbDH30=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
In-Reply-To: <9tgnf7ps2um6d8bubb8725kqlakckln11i@4ax.com>
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.javascript:9770

On 29.12.2011 02:42, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:08:37 +0100, Jake Jarvis
> <pig_in_shoes@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 29.12.2011 00:29, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> Dear JavaScripters:
>>>
>>>        I am writing an object for handling browser-side field
>>> presentation and validation.  Two of the properties will have string
>>> values of code to be executed in order to do validation.  The code
>>> could be arbitrary, but it will probably be a function call with
>>> parameters.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Could you explain the step from 'writing an object for handling [...]
>> presentation and validation' to 'will have string values of code to be
>> executed in order to do validation'?
>
>       I am defining an object called FieldItem.  Two of the properties
> are ValidationBasic and ValidationExtra.  Each of these will hold code
> for validation.
>
>       My plan is to define many FieldItems and pick from these in
> various pages to generate much of the DE code.  Some of it is
> validation code.  (Yes, I will have server-side validation, too.)
>
>       I already have a basic proof-of-concept, but now, I have to patch
> up a few weaknesses.  My validation spec was formerly in the input
> control; now, I want it in the FieldItem object.
>

That is not really what I was getting at, sorry for asking so indirectly.

It reads like having two string value properties containing program code 
to be eventually evaluated one way or another is a given and not up to 
reconsideration, if that is indeed the case, why is that so?

-- 
Jake Jarvis