i would go to not aliasing the "this" variable unless you want a closure to
have access to the original this, like when passing a function to an event
handler
other than that it seems that you are making up a generalization based on fear.
On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> An alternative is not to write code that way to begin with so there
> won't be an issue with shadowing and extraneous function objects:
>
> function Dialog(width){
> this._width = width;
> }
> Dialog.prototype = {
> constructor : Dialog,
> setWidth : function(width){
> this._width = width;
> }
> }
>
> On Mar 3, 1:08 pm, 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]
