Mislav Marohnic' wrote: > ... > Actually, I like your "is" namespace a lot! But - would the name be > obtrusive? What if someone defines "is" variable in the global > namespace (on the window object), will closures save subsequent calls > to real "is" in the framework? ... > I love the "is" idea too. Simple, unique, and prototypish. And what about "Prototype.is"? That reopens the general Prototype philosophy discussion associated with Prototype.Browser--I vote for Prototype.Browser and Prototype.is. :)
Quoting Andrew Dupont regarding Prototype.Browser: " I am not against adding to the namespaces, but I want to make sure it's done judiciously and carefully. Note that typng "Prototype.Browser.KHTML" is still easier than typing "navigator.userAgent.test(/KHTML/)". And while I don't think that browser detection is something we should shy away from lest we encourage bad coding practice... well, I don't think we should be giving it first-class treatment either. Putting it inside the "Prototype" object sends the message that it's for Prototype's internal use and isn't *necessarily* meant for public consumption. " Is this the official Prototype philosophy: "Properties of the Prototype objects are not necessarily meant for public consumption"? If so, how literal do we carry that? (see http://prototypejs.org/api/prototype which documents the properties). I think Prototype.Browser and Prototype.is would add value internally and publicly. --Ken --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
