I totally agree. General functions should be kept static as far as possible.
It doesn't make sense to have every Dynlayer object inherit all that generic
functionality.
Total waste of space :)
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr�n: Robert Rainwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: den 16 december 2000 05:32
�mne: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Large number of updates/fixes
>I haven't seen the new code yet but wouldn't it be
>better if the new global functions were static methods
>of the DynLayer. Like:
>
>DynLayer.createElement = function(dlyr) {}
>
>This way you would say DynLayer.createElement(). I
>think this would make it more clear what the intent of
>the functions were if they were static. I don't think
>this would require any more memory than a global
>function. For users looking at the code, I think a
>static method would be more obvious. Of course, it
>would not change the way it works.
>
>Rob
>
>--- Dan Steinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just change the .createElement() call to
>> DynLayer_createElement(dlyr).
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dynapi-Dev mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dynapi-dev
