Return to Revisions

There is room for improvement, in no particular order:

• Formatting

   for (
                i = 0;
                i < len;
                i++
            ) 

should really follow normal formatting

   for ( i = 0; i < len; i++ )

• Formatting : ( subjective ), the splitting of conditionals into separate lines is overdone, function rig_props is the worst case of overdoing it

• Arrow head coding : http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/01/flattening-arrow-code.html If code has the following, then it was done wrong:

                                        }
                                     );
                                }
                            );
                        }
                    }
                    return obj;
                }
            }
        );
    }
    return obj;
}

• Naming : please use camelCasing and meaningful names, the code is too hard to follow ( slc, t , nl ,un , _tm .. ), I understand you are used to it, but if you ever want other people to understand/maintain this, then you need to fix this.

• Naming : underscores used to indicate private properties/functions, they seem bad form for parameters ( _host_ , _aproto )

• It defines .each(), you should really look into using ForEach() instead, also look into reverse() for flgIterBw

• Functions like _aproto.keep should have at least a one-liner comment as to what it does

• All in all, the code is hard to maintain, not evenly commented and it does not seem to consider the advances made in js 1.6 ( ForEach, filter, etc. ) but it still counts on indexOf()

• Finally, if the code were to be rewritten with the above in mind, it could get more meaningful code reviews because more reviewers could then grok it.