added: Phaser.Utils.getProperty / Phaser.Utils.setProperty; added: Phase...

[ada-lovecraft]

...r.Group.checkAll

Added deep-property getting and setting via strings:

Phaser.Util.getProperty(someObj, 'foo.bar.baz');

Phaser.Util.setProperty(someObj, 'foo.bar.baz', 'lol');

Added a "checkAll" method to Phaser.Group that returns true/false if all of the children's given properties match the value passed in.

this.someGroup.checkAll('foo.bar.baz', 'lol'); // will return true if child[n].foo.bar.baz === 'lol'

Comes with standard 'force' ability.

[lucbloom]

• Maybe instead of having dedicated booleans (checkAlive, checkVisible), you could have a node validation callback passed in:

  var child = this.children[i]; // Temp var to save an extra array lookup...
  if (!validate || validate(child))

• Expert challenge: Could you extend the .split(.) with logic that finds [" ... "]?

• What if a user inputs "this.frame . x" (which is valid JavaScript)? \t\n< space >

[ada-lovecraft]

A few questions/observations about your comments:

1. The current implementation of checkAlive and checkVisible is standard across all of Phaser.Group's "all" methods. I didn't want to break the paradigm for this implementation. I completely agree with passing in validation callbacks, however, as previously stated, that's not the current paradigm. With the addition of Phaser.Utils.getProperty/setProperty, a lot of redundant code in Group can be re-written. This would need to be implemented across the Group api, and would be a severely breaking change. I'm ok with this, due to the up-coming 2.1 release, however, I don't want to move forward without getting the go-ahead from @photonstorm
2. I'm not sure what you mean... could you give me an example?
3. Checking for spaces in a string would be a fairly simple regex to implement, but as a framework, do we really want to sacrifice performance to accommodate for what is widely accepted as bad coding style?

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

[lucbloom]

All valid points. I was thinking from a pure utility function standpoint, like when a game author would use it. Not if it were intended for the core engine implementation.

(Example: this["frame"].x = 3 <--- again, misunderstood the intended audience...)

[ada-lovecraft]

I am curious as to what your second point meant. I'm imagining something like:

var value = Phaser.Utils.getProperty(someObj, 'params.position...');

and I have no idea how or what you would do with that?

[photonstorm]

I'm going to merge this for now, as it's a non-breaking change and a nice feature to add. We can iterate on it for a 2.1 release.