herby's excellent answer points out the recommended way to do it. Appearently, there is now Dictionary-literal support (see his comment below). Didn't know that :-)
Old / Alternate way of doing it
For historical reasons, or for users not using the latest master version, this is an alternative way to do it:
options := <{}>.
options at: #axis put: 'y'.
'#draggable' asJQuery draggable: options.
The first line constructs an empty JavaScript object (it's really an JSObjectProxy
).
The second line puts the string "y" in the slot "axis". It has the same effect as:
options.axis = "y"; // JavaScript
Lastly, it is invoked, and passed as a parameter.
Array-literals vs Dictionaries
What you were doing didn't work because in modern Smalltalk (Pharo/Squeak/Amber) the curly-brackets are used for array-literals, not as an object-literal as they are used in JavaScript.
If you evaluate (print-it) this in a Workspace:
{ #elelemt1. #element2. #element3 }.
You get:
a Array (#elelemt1 #element2 #element3)
As a result, if you have something that looks like a JavaScript object-literal in reality it is an Array of Association(s). To illustrate I give you this snippet, with the results of print-it on the right:
arrayLookingLikeObject := { #key1 -> #value1. #key2 -> #value2. #key3 -> #value3}.
arrayLookingLikeObject class. "==> Array"
arrayLookingLikeObject first class. "==> Association"
arrayLookingLikeObject "==> a Array (a Association a Association a Association)"
I wrote about it here:
http://smalltalkreloaded.blogspot.co.at/2012/04/javascript-objects-back-and-forth.html