Hash is way too useful for me to give up anyway - I'm including it in my More build since 1.3. Thank you :-)
On Nov 5, 3:59 am, Arian <[email protected]> wrote: > Modifying the Object.prototype is Verboten (cretits cpojer), I think > there are enough resources on the interwebs that can explain that. > > That's why Hash existed, to make a elegant way of modifying objects. > However since ES5 uses a lot of those Object.* functions, that will be > the new standard, so MooTools uses a similar approach, since MooTools > wants to make JavaScript itself better. Tbh I don't know if this is > the actual reason, but it is a good one imo. > > If you've got a really big project, and still want to write elegant > code, you might consider Hash, that's why we didn't remove it at all, > but moved it to MooTools More. With a bit of luck you'll win some > bytes back because of the slightly shorter syntax ;) > > On Nov 4, 7:34 pm, Sean McArthur <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hash is definitely more elegant, and that's why it exists. However, some > > people might not care or need to use those methods enough to make the extra > > file size worth it. > > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Ronny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Using a hash looks more elegant for me, but I'd love to learn what are > > > the benefits of each(no pun intended) approach. > > > Simplified examples:http://jsfiddle.net/Ronny/zmfK8/ > > > > - Ronny > > > > On Nov 4, 12:13 am, Sean McArthur <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Object.each is a generic method, not an instance method. MooTools > > > > doesn't > > > > modify the Object prototype, so you cant do ({ a: 1 }).each(). > > > > > The correct way to do is shown as an example in the docs: > > > > > Object.each(myObj, function(val, key) { > > > > > }); > > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, André Fiedler > > > > <[email protected]>wrote:> Don´t know where´s the problem. > > > Could someone plz help me? > > > > > >http://jsfiddle.net/SunboX/MNmGg/ > > > > > > greetings Sunny
