Those are merely wrappers and are optional. You can perform the same commands
manually:
function MyObject() {
this.DynObject = DynObject;
this.DynObject();
}
MyObject.prototype = new DynObject;
MyObject.prototype._className = "MyObject";
MyObject.prototype._pClassName = "DynObject";
I think dynapi.setPrototype('MyObject','DynObject') and this.inherit() are less ugly.
I believe using standard prototyping is better than doing anything more complex,
you'll have a tough time convincing me otherwise considering everything in 2.9 works
perfectly. You could probably add psuedo-multiple inhertiance by manually adding
other methods to the prototype, and adding some checks into DynObject.inherit(). And
in any case, nothing prevents you from building your own objects in any fashion.
Regards,
Dan Steinman
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:56:11AM +0200, Eytan Heidingsfeld wrote:
> I don't understand why you chose such "ugly" inheriting methods. It seems
> quite useless to me. Im my TWidget code I also using inheriting with very
> advanced capabilities (multiple inheritence, calling inherited functions).
> And mine just looks normal.
> You inherit by calling inherit(child,father) and can call an inherited
> function just by doing this.inherited('function');
> 8an
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dynapi-dev@lists.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mail-archive.com/dynapi-dev@lists.sourceforge.net/
