DotObject = obj => new Proxy(obj， { Get:函数(o,k) { Const m = k.match(/(.+?)\.(.+)/) 返回m ?这一点。Get (o[m[1]]， m[2]): o[k] ｝ }) const test = DotObject({a: {b: {c: 'wow'}}}) console.log(测试[' a.b.c '])

AngularJS

Speigg的方法非常简洁，尽管我在搜索通过字符串路径访问AngularJS $scope属性的解决方案时发现了这个回复，并进行了一些修改:

$scope.resolve = function( path, obj ) {
    return path.split('.').reduce( function( prev, curr ) {
        return prev[curr];
    }, obj || this );
}

只需要把这个函数放在你的根控制器中，并像这样使用它的任何子范围:

$scope.resolve( 'path.to.any.object.in.scope')

这是一个有lodash的单班轮。

const deep = { l1: { l2: { l3: "Hello" } } };
const prop = "l1.l2.l3";
const val = _.reduce(prop.split('.'), function(result, value) { return result ? result[value] : undefined; }, deep);
// val === "Hello"

或者更好……

const val = _.get(deep, prop);

或ES6版本w/ reduce…

const val = prop.split('.').reduce((r, val) => { return r ? r[val] : undefined; }, deep);

普伦克尔

最近遇到了同样的问题，并且成功地使用了https://npmjs.org/package/tea-properties，它也设置了嵌套对象/数组:

get:

var o = {
  prop: {
    arr: [
      {foo: 'bar'}
    ]
  }
};

var properties = require('tea-properties');
var value = properties.get(o, 'prop.arr[0].foo');

assert(value, 'bar'); // true

set:

var o = {};

var properties = require('tea-properties');
properties.set(o, 'prop.arr[0].foo', 'bar');

assert(o.prop.arr[0].foo, 'bar'); // true

你必须自己解析字符串:

function getProperty(obj, prop) {
    var parts = prop.split('.');

    if (Array.isArray(parts)) {
        var last = parts.pop(),
        l = parts.length,
        i = 1,
        current = parts[0];

        while((obj = obj[current]) && i < l) {
            current = parts[i];
            i++;
        }

        if(obj) {
            return obj[last];
        }
    } else {
        throw 'parts is not valid array';
    }
}

这要求你也用点表示法定义数组下标:

var part3name1 = "part3.0.name";

它使解析更容易。

DEMO

在这里我提供了更多的方法，这些方法在很多方面看起来都更快:

选项1:Split string on。Or [Or] Or ' Or "，颠倒过来，跳过空项。

function getValue(path, origin) {
    if (origin === void 0 || origin === null) origin = self ? self : this;
    if (typeof path !== 'string') path = '' + path;
    var parts = path.split(/\[|\]|\.|'|"/g).reverse(), name; // (why reverse? because it's usually faster to pop off the end of an array)
    while (parts.length) { name=parts.pop(); if (name) origin=origin[name]; }
    return origin;
}

选项2(最快的，除了eval):低级字符扫描(没有regex/split/等等，只是一个快速字符扫描)。 注意:该命令不支持索引引用。

function getValue(path, origin) {
    if (origin === void 0 || origin === null) origin = self ? self : this;
    if (typeof path !== 'string') path = '' + path;
    var c = '', pc, i = 0, n = path.length, name = '';
    if (n) while (i<=n) ((c = path[i++]) == '.' || c == '[' || c == ']' || c == void 0) ? (name?(origin = origin[name], name = ''):(pc=='.'||pc=='['||pc==']'&&c==']'?i=n+2:void 0),pc=c) : name += c;
    if (i==n+2) throw "Invalid path: "+path;
    return origin;
} // (around 1,000,000+/- ops/sec)

选项3:(新:选项2扩展到支持引号-有点慢，但仍然很快)

function getValue(path, origin) {
    if (origin === void 0 || origin === null) origin = self ? self : this;
    if (typeof path !== 'string') path = '' + path;
    var c, pc, i = 0, n = path.length, name = '', q;
    while (i<=n)
        ((c = path[i++]) == '.' || c == '[' || c == ']' || c == "'" || c == '"' || c == void 0) ? (c==q&&path[i]==']'?q='':q?name+=c:name?(origin?origin=origin[name]:i=n+2,name='') : (pc=='['&&(c=='"'||c=="'")?q=c:pc=='.'||pc=='['||pc==']'&&c==']'||pc=='"'||pc=="'"?i=n+2:void 0), pc=c) : name += c;
    if (i==n+2 || name) throw "Invalid path: "+path;
    return origin;
}

JSPerf： http://jsperf.com/ways-to-dereference-a-delimited-property-string/3

"eval(...)" is still king though (performance wise that is). If you have property paths directly under your control, there shouldn't be any issues with using 'eval' (especially if speed is desired). If pulling property paths "over the wire" (on the line!? lol :P), then yes, use something else to be safe. Only an idiot would say to never use "eval" at all, as there ARE good reasons when to use it. Also, "It is used in Doug Crockford's JSON parser." If the input is safe, then no problems at all. Use the right tool for the right job, that's it.