don't need and shouldn't have to support...
On 6/16/06,
P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm still stomping out __proto__'s from the LFC. The LzParam
construct method creates a shadow hash for it's setters. Does it
really need to do that? If so, can you explain why, so I can put a
comment here?
Index: LzParam.lzs
===================================================================
--- LzParam.lzs (revision 1016)
+++ LzParam.lzs (working copy)
@@ -27,9 +27,10 @@
//
========================================================================
======
LzParam.prototype.construct = function ( parent , args ){
super.construct( parent, args );
- var mysetters ={};
- mysetters.__proto__ = this.setters;
- this.setters = mysetters;
+ // TODO: [2006-06-16 ptw] Do LzParam instances really need to have
+ // their own private setters? Or is this some holdover from the
+ // old class system?
+ this.setters = new LzInheritedHash(this.setters );
// construct
this.d = {};
}
_______________________________________________
Laszlo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
