As a follow up in case anyone is curious about the why behind this assertion, consider a line of code like this
eval("myObject."+functionName+"()")
Not only does it make it difficult to track down the calls to this method, it is now impossible to minify this chunk of code, something that is very commonly done in javascript. This is why javascript includes things like apply() and accessing members of an object in multiple ways (obj.attribute == obj['attribute'], for user-defined values of attribute).
Comments
Right, right, but then how useful would Mug be if the dynamic stuff in JS can't be used?
Munging strings and then eval()ing them is the worst way to write dynamic code. Hopefully its not common in most js libraries.
Missing eval() is a feature.
As a follow up in case anyone is curious about the why behind this assertion, consider a line of code like this
Not only does it make it difficult to track down the calls to this method, it is now impossible to minify this chunk of code, something that is very commonly done in javascript. This is why javascript includes things like apply() and accessing members of an object in multiple ways (obj.attribute == obj['attribute'], for user-defined values of attribute).The "dynamic stuff" appears to all be included. Just not eval(), which is probably a bad thing for most JS code anyway...