Personally, I prefer returning a new object for object creation.
var Dialog = function(){
var width = 400
, setWidth = function(newWidth){
width = newWidth;
};
return {
width: width
, setWidth: setWidth
};
}
Take a look at these two articles by Agnus Croll about creating
objects:
http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/five-ways-to-create-objects/
and
http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/five-ways-to-create-obejcts-part-2-inheritance/
As for using the name self, there's no problem because of closures.
However, if you want access to window's self, you won't be able to use
that. Another popular name is `that'.
------------------------
Gary Katsevman
Computer Science Undergraduate
Northeastern University
gkatsev.com
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 14:08, Jarek Foksa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When writing constructor functions it's very convenient to create "var
> self = this" assignment so that we could easily access other
> properties and methods even if default context has changed, for
> example:
>
> var Dialog = function() {
> var self = this;
> this.width = 400;
> this.setWidth = function(newWidth) {
> self.width = newWidth;
> }
> }
>
> But is it really a good idea to use "self" variable name for this
> purpose? It seems to be already assigned to window object by default,
> so I guess redefining it might break some third-party code.
>
> What other names would you recommend? Is there some other convention?
>
> --
> To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>
> To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
>
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
