@Jake:
Yes, I understood exactly why you wanted it configurable, it makes
good sense.
As for the reason we need something more then just
Object.getPrototypeOf():
I wished it could get down to that and we could simply use this, but,
I'll give you a very common use case where this fails:
var instance = {
__proto__: {
method: function () { alert('a'); },
__proto__: {
method: function () { alert('super a'); }
}
}
}
"instance" is an instance of some class that has a method "method" and
it inherits another class that has a method by the same name.
If you call Object.getPrototypeOf() on "instance" and ask for the
method "method" you'll get the same method. Bummer!
Say you had this method call its super inside it:
method: function () { alert('a'); return
Object.getPrototypeOf(this).method(); },
You'll crash the browser. Uber bummer!
So, we need something a bit more comprehensive than that.
As for your pd.make, yes, it's pretty much the same as Create.
Create also lets you cache the resulted object in a function that will
generate the same instance with every call, if you find it necessary.
Like define once and construct multiple times.
@Alexander:
You're right, usually you wouldn't call an overridden property from a
different one.
The thing is, for now, this looks like the smallest, safest, most
simple and least obtrusive way of getting a property.
Besides naming a function and getting it from arguments.callee.caller,
is there another way you see of getting that property?
Thanks a lot guys!
~Y
On Oct 25, 11:35 am, "Fyodorov "bga" Alexander"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ydaniv:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks guys for the input!
>
> > @Jake:
> > It's evil to extend Object.prototype with an enumerable property.
> > here "_prototype_" is non-configurable because the logic here depends
> > on it. If you choose to use this then you'd want it to be non-
> > configurable.
> > But perhaps you're right and I could add "configurable: true", seems
> > like a good idea.
>
> > The "_asDescriptor" function is private and quite straight-forward.
> > The use of the letters e, p &r is a physical joke, and I didn't think
> > that following a single-line function would be too hard to follow.
> > Anyhow, I guess I'll change those to something more meaningful.
>
> > I'm sorry that you see the supr function as magic, cause actually it
> > follows the straight forward logic of getting an overridden property
> > in a prototype chain:
> > You find the object in the chain that actually defines this property
> > and then get this property again from its parent.
> > Since JS don't protect you from possible errors you need to go through
> > some hoops.
>
> > What are Object.make & Object.createSimple?
> > And yes, Create is very thin and light, that was the objective here.
>
> > @Alexander:
> > As I mentioned in the docs, if you name each method you're using supr
> > inside and not in strict mode then you can loose the "name" param.
>
> > Personally I don't like Resig's this._super because I find it very
> > obtrusive, it bloats your code, and frankly it uses magic like using
> > regex on the function.toString().
>
> > If you consider using a function's name inside it as breaking the DRY
> > principle then I guess that's your opinion. In python, you call a
> > super function like this:
> > class C(B):
> > def method(self, arg):
> > super(C, self).method(arg)
>
> > You could say I took some inspiration from that.
> > Besides that, putting a name of a different property allows you to
> > call a different overridden property, which is not RY at all.
>
> > Thanks!
> > ~Y
>
> > On Oct 24, 1:01 pm, "Fyodorov "bga" Alexander"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > ydaniv:
>
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > I saw some discussions about OO & inheritance in JS so thought I might
> > > > share a small Gist I've contrived:
>
> > > >https://gist.github.com/1074335
>
> > > > It's ES5 only and implements a simple wrap for the Object.create
> > > > mechanism and a "super" property getter in a more unobtrusive way.
>
> > > > It's OS and will appreciate any feedback.
>
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > ~Y
>
> > > this._super() is better then your method because you force me
> > > duplicate method name, its not DRY
>
> ok, its flexible but if you design/decomposition require call some
> random method from super classes, not exactly what you overwrite - its
> mean that you have bad design or i dont know real use cases
--
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]
