optimize conditional statement

[tychio]

I think it clearer.

[paulirish]

looks sharp here. @ashmind your move.

[morganrallen]

I think it looks fine and doesn't break tests

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Paul Irish notifications@github.comwrote:

looks sharp here. @ashmind https://github.com/ashmind your move.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/paulirish/break-on-access/pull/7#issuecomment-24560995 .

http://ithoughtyouweretherobot.com Metal and Wire

http://nolonelyguineapigs.com/ Wandering and Rambling

http://morglog.org Old and Neglected.

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: OpenPGP.js v.1.20121007 Comment: http://openpgpjs.org

xsBNBFG3btUBB/9+/WJNOSIuc/praKPaPOweqXV5s7PGRD+HAnNWF/19YAY3 AFtfeoelhhY4sMJoobTaJzcZojznZ1kl/7UuuYCnbJO3Z9kaSMVrVxEZMSLe YmW8Hc4ZsTnl9f05DQFy8ABpAvMLmXJQXh63BbfzjFqNbSWQfLhrubSM2Elq xmN6EsmRyAuEeYlSnal+Di2MlViohpCbbagE2D6AZTUECIamTib6+DuLG4XO b4GGKHR9TXu2qS1VH6hqcvdEz2MDE5OqZzAnBgcF2dvcOdTk9gAOoR1T+qKj IJtg2X0ETbxcPqEXQoXE8VrxN0MLT5JQKTg26+csU4P2w0rEWsUsJombABEB AAHNJU1vcmdhbiBBbGxlbiA8bW9yZ2FucmFsbGVuQGdtYWlsLmNvbT7CwFwE EAECABAFAlG3btwJEG9pFLKaVEfeAAD7hwf+K8LN/kfgi8GTRLiTcuM+hSbm uAeiBY+VaJIQFLzoFlt8A0hBlLNPFNNmUDxdPrMErdHgZ7HtJW/6RANuBTti 5hr3EBguH1GQyK7BbUqJGvaEX4UNRej3uyX3ufXDsIB/3NsKaTyyu+SO0+Hv Cn2DwmlfSXcPhoarx6Turizn/WwgtTN3tqrMWxxiCKWydLH5xYuz+23BLMdc oF/zkbF+7ddFhmyfiFh4Ej9//tsfwPj2cACU3uLTrcwCo7IxUtkrqMF/fhlm LEqjhzDDjq9v7GNWb/5xB2xgTaucJ7/ljuS8nPlZqwCI8NlTgSqC8nyVLyjS yVtOzkItcS0UqyW1Mg== =V/Ia -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

[ashmind]

I think it is great, but might be streamlined a bit more? (Sorry I have only time for a quick look, so I couldn't run tests on following proposal)

// ...
// remove verifyNotWritable

var enabled = true;
var originalProperty = getPropertyDescriptor(obj, propertyName);
var newProperty = { enumerable: originalProperty.enumerable };

// write
if (originalProperty.set || originalProperty.writable) {
    newProperty.set = function(val) {
        if (enabled)
            debugger;

        if (originalProperty.set) {
            originalProperty.set.call(this, val) 
        } else {
            originalProperty.value = val;
        }
    }
} else if (mode !== 'read') {
    throw "This property is not writable, so only possible mode is 'read'.";
}

// read
newProperty.get = function(val) {
    if (enabled && mode === 'read')
        debugger;

    return originalProperty.get ? originalProperty.get.call(this, val) : originalProperty.value;
}

// ...

I am OK with proposed version as well though.

[morganrallen]

If mode is not read should newProperty.get be defined at all?

[ashmind]

I think yes if original property was a value property (which is the most common case). Wait, nevermind, it should always be defined since we replace the property.

[tychio]

It's shorter and no problem, but I think conditions should be simplified rather than line.The originalProperty.set is judged two times.

[morganrallen]

Apparently it does.