Thanks for the all of the info, it has been very useful! My head isn't spinning as much as it was yesterday, and I thank you all for that :) -Hector
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Michael Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: Michael Geary > > > Hector's head must be spinning by now, if he's continued to > > > read this thread. > > > From: RobG > > I hope he(?) has, discussions are a great way get to > > understand things. > > Very true! > > > Just to be clear, the term "method" is defined in ECMA-262 > > section 4.2 as "a function associated with an object via a property". > > > > Obviously, one.alertX() is calling alertX as a method of > > > the one object. > > > > > > Perhaps less obviously, one.alertX.call( two ) is calling > > > alertX *as a method of the two object*. > > > That's where I disagree. In your teminology, I'd say alertX > > has been called as *if it was* a method of two, rather than > > as a method of two. In my language, I'd just say call sets > > alertX's this keyword to two and forget the word method. > > That's totally reasonable. I was just using the word "method" informally in > the "quacks like a duck" sense. Inside a function, what really matters is > what "this" is. What we call it doesn't affect how it works. I'm perfectly > happy to say that the function was called "as if it were a method" of some > object, or to just avoid the term and talk about "this" instead. > > Thanks for keeping me on my toes, Rob. :-) > > -Mike > >
