> I was simply suggesting that using the right words would make > things clearer. Danny is right in a sense. > Ron > > Karina Steffens wrote: > > Danny, I think what Ron means is, you don't instantiate the class > > _and_ the super class, as you would with Director. > > > > As you know (and for anyone that isn't familiar with it), > in Director > > the "ancestor" property is an instance of the superclass, residing > > within an instance of the subclass (a bit like a Russian > Doll!) - but > > in Flash you don't get two instances within each other, but just a > > single hybrid of all the classes in the inheritance chain. > > > > To be honest, I'm not really sure what is better. Certainly the > > Director way is a lot more flexible - you can generate and swap > > ancestors on the fly, which I think is pretty cool, a bit > like inheritance via composition.
What I like about the Lingo model is the simplicity that every object is a clear 'thing' that can be seen and inspected. There's a certain elegance to the ECMA system where *everything* is an object, but you lose the sense of distinction between objects, properties and methods that you have in Lingo. Using this particular issue as an example, what exactly *is* 'super'? It's not an object in the same sense that our instantiated class is, it's a kind of hidden layer of the class. I'm not saying one system is better or the other (I started with Lingo, so I'm more comfortable with it, but I like both). Danny _______________________________________________ [email protected] To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
