Repository navigation
Nan::SetProperty (const char * version of Nan::Set to match Nan::SetMethod) #947
Description
Perhaps I missed it, but there does not appear to be a convenience method that lets you just pass a C string for the property name to Nan::Set like you can do with Nan::SetMethod. Perhaps there is a reason for this, but I always end up making a macro that does this for myself and figured it was worth asking if it would be fine to add officially here, either as an overloaded version of Nan::Set or as a new Nan::SetProperty method. If so I can make a PR.
Activity
kkoopa commentedon Jan 13, 2023
The main reason why it does not exist is because the function it papers over does not have an overload accepting a
const char *. While NAN does contain some convenience methods, the primary reason is just for source-level version independence. Now, for this particular feature, I am not opposed to adding it, since it seems fairly small in scope at first glance, but I have a faint recollection that polymorphism involvingchar *in this way may have some nasty edge cases under certain conditions, but I do not know if they would apply here, nor if I remember correctly. It has been years I last had to deal with these things, so forgive my rusty memory.That being said, if you were to submit a PR adding this feature and it provably does not break anything, I would gladly merge it.
tolmasky commentedon Jan 13, 2023
Would you prefer I create a new named method in that case, like
SetProperty? I think this would ensure we don't hit any polymorphism issues since it wouldn't be overloadingNan::Set. Otherwise I am happy to do it withNan::Settoo, whichever you prefer.kkoopa commentedon Jan 13, 2023
If it were to be added, I would prefer it to be polymorphic (through overload or template, whichever is best for this). I had a quick glance at the code and there are all these related functions with key:value like
Nan::Get,Nan:DefineOwnPropertyetc. that should receive the same treatment for consistency's sake, so the scope already grew a bit. I would like to hear from our resident C++ expert @agnat, if he has time to give an opinion. If a simple set of overloads will do, that is probably the easiest solution.agnat commentedon Jan 14, 2023
At a glance I think an overload should be fine...