On 9/27/06, David Temkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From a newbie point of view, "class" and "<class>" are pretty much > the same thing. > > They're objects that can be instantiated, have methods, inherit from > other classes, etc. It is just plain confusing to have to learn about > the differences between the two, and put them in different mental > categories. Yes, you can get more features by declaring a class in > LZX vs. in script (attributes, constraints), but that's a-OK. It's > still a class in the ordinary sense of the term -- that is the fact.
Note that in Tucker's proposal we are renaming "<class>" to "<element>" (or maybe "<tag>"?). One reason is to avoid confusing the users of CSS. But more importantly, I feel that the language landscape had changed since the LZX language was spec'd out several years ago. At that time, there was NO support for a "class" in Javascript. Now there is, and our <class> tag is a different beast. I would rather not hamstring the advanced users by trying to force language to conflate the two. I don't believe it will be any more difficult for new users to grasp the <element> tag, and in fact may find it simpler, as they don't have to have any concept of Javascript classes at all. Looking at the correspondence from developers on the mailing lists though, they are all doing pretty complex things and seem to quickly run up against all the edges of the system. I don't think we are doing anyone any favors by trying to paper over the differences in the JS 2.0 style classes and our classes. _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
