Not quite as concise but:
var stopButton = Object.create(ImageButton.prototype, {
image: {value: getImage('stop.png')},
size: {value: buttonSize},
toolTip: {value: 'Stop Running Scripts'},
onClick: {value:stopAll}
});
Of course, if you wanted something other than the default attribute values you
would have to also add those.
Allen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:es-discuss-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Watkins
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:26 AM
> To: Jürg Lehni
> Cc: es-discuss
> Subject: Re: Syntax Proposal: Allow Java-like Object Literals after
> constructor
> calls to set properties on created objects.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with the idiomatic Javascript way of
> passing
> an object literal as your last constructor argument? So your example becomes:
>
> var stopButton = new ImageButton(this, {
> image: getImage('stop.png'),
> size: buttonSize,
> toolTip: 'Stop Running Scripts',
> onClick: stopAll
> });
>
> Granted, you wind up with an extra comma...
>
> On 30 Jun, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Jürg Lehni wrote:
>
> > I am still interested in hearing more feedback on this. Maybe my examples
> were not so clear?
> >
> > As more real world example, taken from a UI library that I am working with,
> would look like this:
> >
> > var stopButton = new ImageButton(this) {
> > image: getImage('stop.png'),
> > size: buttonSize,
> > toolTip: 'Stop Running Scripts',
> > onClick: stopAll
> > };
> >
> >
> > Again, all the properties from the object literal immediately following the
> constructor call would then be set on the created object.
> >
> > Rhino allows me to use this already and it has been proven to be very
> > useful in
> many occasions, leading to cleaner and more readable code.
> >
> > Jürg
> >
> > On 8 Jun 2010, at 20:57, Mike Samuel wrote:
> >
> >> A lot of people put opening semicolons on a new line, including the
> >> Rhino authors.
> >> How would semicolon insertion in this proposal interact with that
> >> formatting convention?
> >> var runnable = new java.lang.Runnable()
> >> {
> >> run: function ()
> >> {
> >> }
> >> };
> >>
> >>
> >> 2010/6/8 Jürg Lehni <[email protected]>:
> >>> This simple proposal is inspired by an extension of Rhino that currently
> allows to implement its syntax for anonymous Java interface implementation.
> Here an example that creates an anonymous class implementing the Runnable
> interface and defining the run method in an anonymous object literal that
> (mimicking a Java code block) immediately following the constructor call:
> >>>
> >>> var runnable = new java.lang.Runnable() {
> >>> run: function() {
> >>> }
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> When looking deeper into how Rhino achieves this syntax, I found out that
> >>> it
> simply appends the following anonymous object literal to the list of arguments
> of whatever constructor came before. So the following code works in Rhino and
> prints the content of the hello string to the console:
> >>>
> >>> function Test(obj) {
> >>> print(obj.hello);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> new Test() {
> >>> hello: 'Greetings, I am an anonymous object literal'
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> For the Illustrator scripting plugin http://scriptographer.org I came up
> >>> with
> the convention to (ab)use this non-standard feature to allow setting of
> properties on freshly created objects, by extending the underlying Java proxy
> objects to automatically detect such a passed object literal, iterate through
> its
> properties and set them on the newly created object (In Scriptographer it is
> then
> also removed from the argument list). Soon it became apparent that this is
> very
> useful and also leads to cleaner code. I therefore started to wonder if this
> would
> make sense as an syntax extension in ES5. Here another example.
> >>>
> >>> function MyConstructor(param) {
> >>> print(param); // Should not print the object literal }
> >>>
> >>> var obj = new MyConstructor() {
> >>> property: 'This will be automatically set on the created object'
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> print(obj.property); // 'This will...created object'
> >>>
> >>> So far I cannot see any syntax conflicts.
> >>>
> >>> I am wondering what you all think of this proposal and look forward to
> >>> your
> thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> Jürg
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
