Unless someone on this list speaks up, I plan to delete this code.
On 2006-06-16, at 15:26 EDT, Adam Wolff wrote:
> This was all in a misguided attempt to make it so that you could
> declare
> dataset params in laszlo. I don't think anyone uses that feature. We
> should deprecate or remove it.
>
> A
>
> On Jun 16, P T Withington 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
